Health Secretary Steve Barclay says it’s “provocative” to hold a protest for a ceasefire on Armistice Day, saying there are other days people should march on.
Forgive me for being old school but I don’t think it’s for the government to decide what days opposition happens.
Depends on what the protest is and who has called it. As an example, last weekend there was a protest in Newcastle. Organised by "Friends of Al-Asqa" - a pro-Hamas organisation.
I have sympathy for everyone who wants to march calling for peace. But if you march with FOA or on one of their rallies you do not march for peace. You march for genocide whether you know it or not. So who is organising the marches on Saturday?
That's absurd. It's like claiming anyone turning out on Sunday with a poppy at their local memorial is glorifying war, just because that is the motivation of a few participants.
Did you actually read the post you were replying to? Would you march with FOA? Would you support people marching with FOA?
No, as I said at the beginning these marches are not my cup of tea.
But you can't ascribe genocidal intent to all who are calling for ceasefire. For example some Jewish organisations are.
Yes, quite agree. Though I do wonder if there was going to be a different rowdy march on Armistice Day would the police tell them to get fucked or not, say Fathers for Justice who got hounded by the Met when they marched on normal days.
We seem to be living through a period of double standards where one set of protestors have been given more rights than others.
Anyway, I hope they do march on Armistice Day, it will show the country how at odds this "movement" for Hamas is with the rest of us. These terrorist supporters are being given enough rope.
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
Effectively that means a government (presumably Home Secretary) veto on any march or protest.
If only pro-government marches are allowed we have ceased to be a democracy.
And yes, that would be bad. On the other hand, it's a visible decision by a named person; not a committee decision in a darkened room by unnamed individuals.
Are you saying no march should ever be banned?
You already have your wish. If the Metropolitan Police wants to ban this (or any) march because of a threat to public order, they actually request the Home Secretary does it. Here is the government's account of a previous occasion this power was exercised:-
But the Metropolitan Police Service applied for permission to stop the protests amid public order fears.
After receiving the official application late on Thursday, Home Secretary Theresa May today agreed to a ban across five London boroughs.
She said: ‘Having carefully considered the legal tests in the Public Order Act and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected, I have given my consent to a ban on all marches in Tower Hamlets and four neighbouring boroughs for a 30-day period. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-agrees-march-ban
Just to correct you, they don't request the Home Secretary does it. They ask the Home Secretary if she (in this case) is in agreement, but the actual ban comes from the Police not the politician. It is a weasely way of doing things to try and get the politicians off the hook. The law was changed in 2022.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
The problem is that Hamas know the international law, and are putting Israel into a position where they cannot fight back without seeming (at least) to break that law.
I've asked people many times on here, what Israel *should* do? I've had one answer from @Richard_Tyndall ; assassinations. Which is a good answer, but probably won't help immediately, won't cure the problem, and might have massive international repurcussions.
So anyone who is calling for 'peace' (and always from Israel, and rarely Hamas / Hezbollah as well) should state *what* they want Israel to do. for many, I fear the answer is "cease to exist*. either because that's what they want, or because they don't realise that's the end result of what they're calling for.
This is absolutely the answer. An awful lot of people - myself included - are horrified by what we see in Gaza. People look for simplistic answers to difficult issues. Some of the marches and some of the people marching on them are explicitly calling for the eradication of Israel. Many will march on one explicitly calling for the eradication of Israel without openly feeling genocidal but that's what they are doing. Others just want the killing to stop.
Here is the problem. I read this morning in the *Financial Times* that the al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City has an extensive network of Hamas tunnels underneath it. As Israel closes the net on Hamas we know exactly what people will say - evil Israel attacking a hospital. Not evil Hamas turning a hospital into their base. They will demand a Ceasefire Now. That Israel not attack the hospital. They say for peace, but in harsh reality for Hamas.
There is no easy out, no simple solution. A heavily armed terrorist organisation - funded and equipped by Iran - is under this hospital. Under people's homes and businesses. You can't just stop fighting. Or Hamas win. And after a brief pause the fighting goes on, likely this time with Hamas and IJ / Hezbollah going at Israel on multiple fronts.
Israel faces defeat. Again. And yet is seen as the aggressor. The psychopaths digging themselves under the hospital seen as the victims. It is a perverse world we now live in.
So are you arguing that the destruction of one of the few remaining hospitals in a war zone is justified?
At what point do you think the destruction becomes excessive? Or is there no line to cross.
So we get a ceasefire. Briefly. Then the terrorists come out from under the hospital with their weapons and it starts again.
What ceasefire...
1) hold a funeral for any hostages 2) pump 2 parts kerosene or diesel to 1 part petrol down the hole. Add some aluminium powder while you’re at it. 3) follow up with some white phosphorus.
The march(es) is (are) planned for Remembrance Day - but that's Saturday, not Sunday.
There will be no clash with the ceremony.
Yes, the fact that there has been so much wilful confusion about this rather gives the game away for those who want to ban this March. For those who choose to observe it there will be a 2 minute silence on Armistice Day at 11, well before this March starts. There will also be Remembrance Sunday formalities at the Cenotaph long after it finishes. There is no clash.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the views of the organisers and the police should be vigilant about preventing antisemitism on our streets but this march should undoubtedly go ahead. Unlike Gaza this is a functioning democracy with a right to protest.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
Israel will need to remove at least a large chunk of its settlements in the West Bank. A 2-state solution remains the least worst option for Israel. But with respect to it, settlements in the West Bank are not directly involved in what is happening in Gaza. Hamas is not fighting for the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, it is fighting for the removal of Israel.
On the "use less bombs" point, that could happen. And the fighting goes street to street which will be even more destructive and bloody. We have learned that lesson so many times - Stalingrad, Berlin, Fallujah etc.
When the terrorists have embedded themselves inside and underneath civilians, when they see themselves and the civilians as expendable, when they won't stop until they win or everyone is dead, there is no way to stop them with less violence. Sadly.
Yes, quite agree. Though I do wonder if there was going to be a different rowdy march on Armistice Day would the police tell them to get fucked or not, say Fathers for Justice who got hounded by the Met when they marched on normal days.
We seem to be living through a period of double standards where one set of protestors have been given more rights than others.
Anyway, I hope they do march on Armistice Day, it will show the country how at odds this "movement" for Hamas is with the rest of us. These terrorist supporters are being given enough rope.
There was someone on PB the other day, saying that other matches hadn’t been banned, and it was a bit weedy of pro-Jewish protestors to accede to police requests not to march.
I know that we're going round in circles. The world is. I apparently read like some blood-thirsty lunatic not caring for civilians. If there was a viable ceasefire then of course we should have it now. Yesterday. Last week.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.
Which is precisely why Israel's policy of permanent occupation fails.
Re-opening serious talks with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and stopping further land seizures by settlers would help. If people see progress through peaceful means then they are less supportive of the fanatics.
Over 100 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank by armed settlers and IDF troops in the last month and further lands seized. This is overshadowed by events in Gaza, but some Israelis find it a convenient time to expand.
Egypt did some remarkable things to get itself a stable electricity supply, from constant rolling brown-outs. They did some very practical planning, putting in place systems that cut through the delays in getting infrastucture built.
We should certainly have asked them to run HS2 for a bit....
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
The march(es) is (are) planned for Remembrance Day - but that's Saturday, not Sunday.
There will be no clash with the ceremony.
Yes, the fact that there has been so much wilful confusion about this rather gives the game away for those who want to ban this March. For those who choose to observe it there will be a 2 minute silence on Armistice Day at 11, well before this March starts. There will also be Remembrance Sunday formalities at the Cenotaph long after it finishes. There is no clash.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the views of the organisers and the police should be vigilant about preventing antisemitism on our streets but this march should undoubtedly go ahead. Unlike Gaza this is a functioning democracy with a right to protest.
Plus, as someone with Jewish heritage, I want to see the anti-semitism.
I want it on camera. I want the “gas the Jews” types found and named. I want them on display. Be the Nazi you are.
They exist anyway. Pretending they don’t exist is stupid.
I know that we're going round in circles. The world is. I apparently read like some blood-thirsty lunatic not caring for civilians. If there was a viable ceasefire then of course we should have it now. Yesterday. Last week.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.
I agree that calls for a ceasefire can be naive. A ceasefire has to involve agreement from both sides. If such an agreement can be reached, that’s generally a step in the right direction. I don’t know how realistic that is right now. Calls for peace are often naive, but maybe they can still have a positive effect?
Of course, when a ceasefire occurs, both sides will continue making preparations. Hamas will push out propaganda, although I don’t see how they will get arms from Iran past Israel’s blockade! Israel will still push out propaganda too. Israel will keep building settlements and arming settlers on the West Bank. A ceasefire is not an end. One hopes it provides a space in which further negotiations can take place. Again, I don’t know how realistic that is right now.
PS: I went to a listening event that Steven Wilson was going to be at last night, of his new surround mix for The Yes Album, but unfortunately he was held up and did not attend.
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
They have the power to legislate. Giving them the power to adjudicate on individual matches is a truly dreadful idea.
Who else should adjudicate? Or should there be no adjudication, ever?
The Met are following the current law, which sets out the parameters. They do non believe there are legal grounds for a ban, and are (for once) very probably right about that. The courts interpret the law, of course.
(Snip)
To be clear, I'm not calling for any of the marches this weekend to be banned. Just that the HS should have the right to do so in extremis - and to be seen as doing so.
No. You know what happens then. In extremis becomes more and more widely drawn. It ceases to be about safety and public order and becomes about the aesthetics and tastes of the government.
We’ve seen more than enough evidence of this sort of drift towards managed democracy in former Soviet countries, in Poland and Hungary, Turkey and of course Russia itself to know it only goes one way. It starts with innocent enough excuses (like traffic congestion or stretched policing) that become ever more blatant over time.
The initial judgment should be with police but that power should also be subject to judicial oversight. Keep it as far away from parliament as possible. Let them argue over the politics, not permission.
The stop the war coalition are a spectrum from naive peaceniks to borderline malevolent but they have as much right to protest as anyone else.
Stop the War Coalition started out as an SWP-front, like all the other SWP-fronts.
Then they managed to engage a somewhat more mainstream group of fellow-travellers.
Then the SWP imploded.
Looking at the current event, it's the same people Lindsey German, Chris Nineham et al, the leadership of the same small group of Trades Unions (NEU, RMT, UCU). Organisations such as CND. And various fellow travellers - the Absolute Boy, Ken Loach, Claudia Webbe and so on.
This is one of the reasons I'm strongly opposed to the cuts in foreign aid. If we won't take any of the refugees - which we evidently won't - and won't help fund their care in neighbouring states like Pakistan, then any outrage expressed is entirely synthetic.
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
They have the power to legislate. Giving them the power to adjudicate on individual matches is a truly dreadful idea.
Who else should adjudicate? Or should there be no adjudication, ever?
The Met are following the current law, which sets out the parameters. They do non believe there are legal grounds for a ban, and are (for once) very probably right about that. The courts interpret the law, of course.
(Snip)
To be clear, I'm not calling for any of the marches this weekend to be banned. Just that the HS should have the right to do so in extremis - and to be seen as doing so.
No. You know what happens then. In extremis becomes more and more widely drawn. It ceases to be about safety and public order and becomes about the aesthetics and tastes of the government.
We’ve seen more than enough evidence of this sort of drift stowards managed democracy in former Soviet countries, in Poland and Hungary, Turkey and of course Russia itself to know it only goes one way. It starts with innocent enough excuses (like traffic congestion or stretched policing) that become ever more blatant over time.
The initial judgment should be with police but that power should also be subject to judicial oversight. Keep it as far away from parliament as possible. Let them argue over the politics, not permission.
The stop the war coalition are a spectrum from naive peaceniks to borderline malevolent but they have as much right to protest as anyone else.
Stop the War Coalition started out as an SWP-front, like all the other SWP-fronts.
Then they managed to engage a somewhat more mainstream group of fellow-travellers.
Then the SWP imploded.
Looking at the current event, it's the same people Lindsey German, Chris Nineham et al, the leadership of the same small group of Trades Unions (NEU, RMT, UCU). Organisations such as CND. And various fellow travellers - the Absolute Boy, Ken Loach, Claudia Webbe and so on.
Full marks to the IDF for apparently giving this level of warning for evacuation, but it does have me scratching my head. With this level of warning, you're not going to successfully target Hamas operatives using these buildings, so what are you doing other than destruction. If they're Hamas meeting places/organisational offices within the residential blocks then you can destroy those, but hard to believe that's all that disruptive -surely they'd have docs etc distributed and the timelines give time to recover some things anyway. What else? Weapons stores - also time to shift some stuff, it seems. Bomb factories - maybe more effective.
Being firmly in the chairbourne division, I applaud being this specific and giving people time to get out, but I struggle to see what is then gained by actually flattening the buildings.
Also, it reads like a film script, doesn't it? Add in a later emotional meeting with the person who phoned the warning and hoover up the Oscars.
Personally you wouldn't catch me anywhere near one of these marches as I am sure that many of those taking part ARE there for anti-semitic reasons and do support not just the Palestinian population but Hamas as well. I wouldn't want to be associated with them even when I am in agreement with many others who will be marching about trying to stop the war.
But at the same time I don't believe that the police should be stopping people going on such marches and that the public have a right to express their opnions in such ways.
There is one additional point though. The police ban marches all the time. They do so on public order grounds, public safety grounds and, I am sure, on public opinion grounds as well though they would never admit to that. They have the power to do so under the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022. So it is dishonest of the Met to claim, as they do this morning, that they have no power to prevent the marches. They do, sadly. They are just choosing not to use that power in this instance but are also too cowardly to take responsibility for it.
For the record I think it is wrong that they can ban marches but I object to the claim that it is out of their hands.
That does amend the 1986 Act but other than that, I can't see how it helps. It probably would allow the demonstration to be stopped if, say, it were next to the Cenotaph during the Remembrance ceremony but it is not near the location or on the same day.
The Metropolitan Police statement refers to the 1986 Act. It ends:-
“But at this time, the intelligence surrounding the potential for serious disorder this weekend does not meet the threshold to apply for a ban.
“The organisers have shown complete willingness to stay away from the Cenotaph and Whitehall and have no intention of disrupting the nation’s remembrance events. Should this change, we’ve been clear we will use powers and conditions available to us to protect locations and events of national importance at all costs.
“Officers will continue to take swift and robust action against any breakaway groups or individuals intent on using legitimate, lawful protest for their own agenda through Saturday and Sunday.
“If over the next few days the intelligence evolves, and we reach a threshold where there is a real threat of serious disorder we will approach the Home Secretary. Right now, we remain focused on the facts in front of us and developing our plan to ensure the highest levels of protection for events throughout the weekend.
Notes to editors
The Met can apply for a public procession to be banned under Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 if there is a risk of serious public disorder.
Yes, quite agree. Though I do wonder if there was going to be a different rowdy march on Armistice Day would the police tell them to get fucked or not, say Fathers for Justice who got hounded by the Met when they marched on normal days.
We seem to be living through a period of double standards where one set of protestors have been given more rights than others.
Anyway, I hope they do march on Armistice Day, it will show the country how at odds this "movement" for Hamas is with the rest of us. These terrorist supporters are being given enough rope.
There was someone on PB the other day, saying that other matches hadn’t been banned, and it was a bit weedy of pro-Jewish protestors to accede to police requests not to march.
Wonder what they think now?
'They' still think that people shouldn't portray themselves deciding to call off a march after talking to the police as it being banned. People coming from roughly the same part of the political spectrum also love to define their opinions not being respected or listened to as censorship. Both kinds of patter just makes me even less inclined to respect or listen to their victimy views.
This is one of the reasons I'm strongly opposed to the cuts in foreign aid. If we won't take any of the refugees - which we evidently won't - and won't help fund their care in neighbouring states like Pakistan, then any outrage expressed is entirely synthetic.
I listened to a BBC WS interview with the Deputy Leader of Hezbollah this morning - interesting. Two snippets:
1 - The Arab League have Hezbollah classified as a terrorist organisation. I did not know that but it's not a surprise given that Hezbollah is in large measure an instrument of Iran, and the centuries long Arab-Persian divide. 2 - BBC quoting Hamas figures wrt people killed.
Full marks to the IDF for apparently giving this level of warning for evacuation, but it does have me scratching my head. With this level of warning, you're not going to successfully target Hamas operatives using these buildings, so what are you doing other than destruction. If they're Hamas meeting places/organisational offices within the residential blocks then you can destroy those, but hard to believe that's all that disruptive -surely they'd have docs etc distributed and the timelines give time to recover some things anyway. What else? Weapons stores - also time to shift some stuff, it seems. Bomb factories - maybe more effective.
Being firmly in the chairbourne division, I applaud being this specific and giving people time to get out, but I struggle to see what is then gained by actually flattening the buildings.
Also, it reads like a film script, doesn't it? Add in a later emotional meeting with the person who phoned the warning and hoover up the Oscars.
Flattening the building is doing *something*.
So it is done
The long, horrible, history of war is often of things being done which are stupid or counterproductive. But they were easy to do.
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
Come on, the Met have had a hard time recently.
Wacking Tommy Robinson and Co. with big sticks is in their core skill set & something the Met would enjoy.
And be the kind of policing we could all applaud for a change.
Little noted, but potentially significant election result from last night - the Dem candidate won the contested Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat, giving liberals a 5/2 majority on the court.
Should reduce the potential for election shenanigans in the state next year.
Egypt did some remarkable things to get itself a stable electricity supply, from constant rolling brown-outs. They did some very practical planning, putting in place systems that cut through the delays in getting infrastucture built.
We should certainly have asked them to run HS2 for a bit....
I'm reminded of a former colleague who left to work for an American computer company in New York during the 1980s. He could not believe the number of brown-outs Americans accepted as normal. I imagine things have improved since.
This is one of the reasons I'm strongly opposed to the cuts in foreign aid. If we won't take any of the refugees - which we evidently won't - and won't help fund their care in neighbouring states like Pakistan, then any outrage expressed is entirely synthetic.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
Yes, quite agree. Though I do wonder if there was going to be a different rowdy march on Armistice Day would the police tell them to get fucked or not, say Fathers for Justice who got hounded by the Met when they marched on normal days.
We seem to be living through a period of double standards where one set of protestors have been given more rights than others.
Anyway, I hope they do march on Armistice Day, it will show the country how at odds this "movement" for Hamas is with the rest of us. These terrorist supporters are being given enough rope.
There was someone on PB the other day, saying that other matches hadn’t been banned, and it was a bit weedy of pro-Jewish protestors to accede to police requests not to march.
Wonder what they think now?
'They' still think that people shouldn't portray themselves deciding to call off a march after talking to the police as it being banned. People coming from roughly the same part of the political spectrum also love to define their opinions not being respected or listened to as censorship. Both kinds of patter just makes me even less inclined to respect or listen to their victimy views.
The pressure from the police not to march was quite heavy. It was strongly implied to the potential marchers that a ban would be sought if they didn’t call it off.
It’s entirety unsurprising that the same pressure is now being applied in the other direction.
Personally you wouldn't catch me anywhere near one of these marches as I am sure that many of those taking part ARE there for anti-semitic reasons and do support not just the Palestinian population but Hamas as well. I wouldn't want to be associated with them even when I am in agreement with many others who will be marching about trying to stop the war.
But at the same time I don't believe that the police should be stopping people going on such marches and that the public have a right to express their opnions in such ways.
There is one additional point though. The police ban marches all the time. They do so on public order grounds, public safety grounds and, I am sure, on public opinion grounds as well though they would never admit to that. They have the power to do so under the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022. So it is dishonest of the Met to claim, as they do this morning, that they have no power to prevent the marches. They do, sadly. They are just choosing not to use that power in this instance but are also too cowardly to take responsibility for it.
For the record I think it is wrong that they can ban marches but I object to the claim that it is out of their hands.
That does amend the 1986 Act but other than that, I can't see how it helps. It probably would allow the demonstration to be stopped if, say, it were next to the Cenotaph during the Remembrance ceremony but it is not near the location or on the same day.
The Metropolitan Police statement refers to the 1986 Act. It ends:-
“But at this time, the intelligence surrounding the potential for serious disorder this weekend does not meet the threshold to apply for a ban.
“The organisers have shown complete willingness to stay away from the Cenotaph and Whitehall and have no intention of disrupting the nation’s remembrance events. Should this change, we’ve been clear we will use powers and conditions available to us to protect locations and events of national importance at all costs.
“Officers will continue to take swift and robust action against any breakaway groups or individuals intent on using legitimate, lawful protest for their own agenda through Saturday and Sunday.
“If over the next few days the intelligence evolves, and we reach a threshold where there is a real threat of serious disorder we will approach the Home Secretary. Right now, we remain focused on the facts in front of us and developing our plan to ensure the highest levels of protection for events throughout the weekend.
Notes to editors
The Met can apply for a public procession to be banned under Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 if there is a risk of serious public disorder.
Again I am not saying the marches should be banned - they should not (IMHO). What I object to is the head of the Met claiming he has "absolutely no power" to ban the march should he choose to do so. This is simply dishonest. As has been already pointed out, the Met has (wrongly in my opinion) banned other marches in the past which had far less potential for public disorder.
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
Effectively that means a government (presumably Home Secretary) veto on any march or protest.
If only pro-government marches are allowed we have ceased to be a democracy.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
Spot on.
Conflicts which generate heat here are those which in some way mirror ourselves. Arguably, and there is much to debate here and many uncertainties, there is a group in the west who are consumed with self hatred and hate the group elsewhere which is most 'like us', and another group consumed with self glorification and hate the group elsewhere that is 'unlike us'.
I know that we're going round in circles. The world is. I apparently read like some blood-thirsty lunatic not caring for civilians. If there was a viable ceasefire then of course we should have it now. Yesterday. Last week.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.
I agree that calls for a ceasefire can be naive. A ceasefire has to involve agreement from both sides. If such an agreement can be reached, that’s generally a step in the right direction. I don’t know how realistic that is right now. Calls for peace are often naive, but maybe they can still have a positive effect?
Of course, when a ceasefire occurs, both sides will continue making preparations. Hamas will push out propaganda, although I don’t see how they will get arms from Iran past Israel’s blockade! Israel will still push out propaganda too. Israel will keep building settlements and arming settlers on the West Bank. A ceasefire is not an end. One hopes it provides a space in which further negotiations can take place. Again, I don’t know how realistic that is right now.
PS: I went to a listening event that Steven Wilson was going to be at last night, of his new surround mix for The Yes Album, but unfortunately he was held up and did not attend.
Hamas has been very successfully getting arms across the borders for years, despite Israel's and Egypt's best efforts. The interesting question is how?
Personally you wouldn't catch me anywhere near one of these marches as I am sure that many of those taking part ARE there for anti-semitic reasons and do support not just the Palestinian population but Hamas as well. I wouldn't want to be associated with them even when I am in agreement with many others who will be marching about trying to stop the war.
But at the same time I don't believe that the police should be stopping people going on such marches and that the public have a right to express their opnions in such ways.
There is one additional point though. The police ban marches all the time. They do so on public order grounds, public safety grounds and, I am sure, on public opinion grounds as well though they would never admit to that. They have the power to do so under the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022. So it is dishonest of the Met to claim, as they do this morning, that they have no power to prevent the marches. They do, sadly. They are just choosing not to use that power in this instance but are also too cowardly to take responsibility for it.
For the record I think it is wrong that they can ban marches but I object to the claim that it is out of their hands.
That does amend the 1986 Act but other than that, I can't see how it helps. It probably would allow the demonstration to be stopped if, say, it were next to the Cenotaph during the Remembrance ceremony but it is not near the location or on the same day.
The Metropolitan Police statement refers to the 1986 Act. It ends:-
“But at this time, the intelligence surrounding the potential for serious disorder this weekend does not meet the threshold to apply for a ban.
“The organisers have shown complete willingness to stay away from the Cenotaph and Whitehall and have no intention of disrupting the nation’s remembrance events. Should this change, we’ve been clear we will use powers and conditions available to us to protect locations and events of national importance at all costs.
“Officers will continue to take swift and robust action against any breakaway groups or individuals intent on using legitimate, lawful protest for their own agenda through Saturday and Sunday.
“If over the next few days the intelligence evolves, and we reach a threshold where there is a real threat of serious disorder we will approach the Home Secretary. Right now, we remain focused on the facts in front of us and developing our plan to ensure the highest levels of protection for events throughout the weekend.
Notes to editors
The Met can apply for a public procession to be banned under Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 if there is a risk of serious public disorder.
Again I am not saying the marches should be banned - they should not (IMHO). What I object to is the head of the Met claiming he has "absolutely no power" to ban the march should he choose to do so. This is simply dishonest. As has been already pointed out, the Met has (wrongly in my opinion) banned other marches in the past which had far less potential for public disorder.
But the solution to everything and anything is more powers to the state and the police. Obvs.
So Andy Beshear is re-elected Kentucky governor by an increased margin but isn't available on Betfair as the Dem nominee next year.
Meanwhile Michelle Obama is 12/1.
Yesterday's elections suggest that Trump has no chance against a competent candidate.
Yes, the overall elections last night show a lot of Democrat support. There isn't much enthusiasm for Biden, but it does look like Dems will turn out, like they did at the mid terms.
Yes, quite agree. Though I do wonder if there was going to be a different rowdy march on Armistice Day would the police tell them to get fucked or not, say Fathers for Justice who got hounded by the Met when they marched on normal days.
We seem to be living through a period of double standards where one set of protestors have been given more rights than others.
Anyway, I hope they do march on Armistice Day, it will show the country how at odds this "movement" for Hamas is with the rest of us. These terrorist supporters are being given enough rope.
There was someone on PB the other day, saying that other matches hadn’t been banned, and it was a bit weedy of pro-Jewish protestors to accede to police requests not to march.
Wonder what they think now?
'They' still think that people shouldn't portray themselves deciding to call off a march after talking to the police as it being banned. People coming from roughly the same part of the political spectrum also love to define their opinions not being respected or listened to as censorship. Both kinds of patter just makes me even less inclined to respect or listen to their victimy views.
The pressure from the police not to march was quite heavy. It was strongly implied to the potential marchers that a ban would be sought if they didn’t call it off.
It’s entirety unsurprising that the sane pressure is now being applied in the other direction.
Amazing the access to information you have that is denied to we lesser mortals. Was it a relative, someone you used to work with or a bloke in the pub that imparted this to you?
Personally you wouldn't catch me anywhere near one of these marches as I am sure that many of those taking part ARE there for anti-semitic reasons and do support not just the Palestinian population but Hamas as well. I wouldn't want to be associated with them even when I am in agreement with many others who will be marching about trying to stop the war.
But at the same time I don't believe that the police should be stopping people going on such marches and that the public have a right to express their opnions in such ways.
There is one additional point though. The police ban marches all the time. They do so on public order grounds, public safety grounds and, I am sure, on public opinion grounds as well though they would never admit to that. They have the power to do so under the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022. So it is dishonest of the Met to claim, as they do this morning, that they have no power to prevent the marches. They do, sadly. They are just choosing not to use that power in this instance but are also too cowardly to take responsibility for it.
For the record I think it is wrong that they can ban marches but I object to the claim that it is out of their hands.
That does amend the 1986 Act but other than that, I can't see how it helps. It probably would allow the demonstration to be stopped if, say, it were next to the Cenotaph during the Remembrance ceremony but it is not near the location or on the same day.
The Metropolitan Police statement refers to the 1986 Act. It ends:-
“But at this time, the intelligence surrounding the potential for serious disorder this weekend does not meet the threshold to apply for a ban.
“The organisers have shown complete willingness to stay away from the Cenotaph and Whitehall and have no intention of disrupting the nation’s remembrance events. Should this change, we’ve been clear we will use powers and conditions available to us to protect locations and events of national importance at all costs.
“Officers will continue to take swift and robust action against any breakaway groups or individuals intent on using legitimate, lawful protest for their own agenda through Saturday and Sunday.
“If over the next few days the intelligence evolves, and we reach a threshold where there is a real threat of serious disorder we will approach the Home Secretary. Right now, we remain focused on the facts in front of us and developing our plan to ensure the highest levels of protection for events throughout the weekend.
Notes to editors
The Met can apply for a public procession to be banned under Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 if there is a risk of serious public disorder.
Again I am not saying the marches should be banned - they should not (IMHO). What I object to is the head of the Met claiming he has "absolutely no power" to ban the march should he choose to do so. This is simply dishonest. As has been already pointed out, the Met has (wrongly in my opinion) banned other marches in the past which had far less potential for public disorder.
Ah, right, I do not think the Commissioner is quite saying that since he explicitly refers to disorder here: "[if] we reach a threshold where there is a real threat of serious disorder we will approach the Home Secretary" but is saying that absent that threat, there are no powers to ban the march on, say, political grounds or because it will cause offence.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
Yes, I substantially agree. Indeed worth remembering that the author of "Orientalism" was a Palestinian.
I know that we're going round in circles. The world is. I apparently read like some blood-thirsty lunatic not caring for civilians. If there was a viable ceasefire then of course we should have it now. Yesterday. Last week.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.
I agree that calls for a ceasefire can be naive. A ceasefire has to involve agreement from both sides. If such an agreement can be reached, that’s generally a step in the right direction. I don’t know how realistic that is right now. Calls for peace are often naive, but maybe they can still have a positive effect?
Of course, when a ceasefire occurs, both sides will continue making preparations. Hamas will push out propaganda, although I don’t see how they will get arms from Iran past Israel’s blockade! Israel will still push out propaganda too. Israel will keep building settlements and arming settlers on the West Bank. A ceasefire is not an end. One hopes it provides a space in which further negotiations can take place. Again, I don’t know how realistic that is right now.
PS: I went to a listening event that Steven Wilson was going to be at last night, of his new surround mix for The Yes Album, but unfortunately he was held up and did not attend.
Hamas has been very successfully getting arms across the borders for years, despite Israel's and Egypt's best efforts. The interesting question is how?
Smuggling, I expect. It is only an interesting question if you are an Israeli or Egyptian border guard or a conspiracy theorist who believes Israel itself armed Hamas. Otherwise small rockets can fit inside containers and guns in the boot of a car.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
Effectively that means a government (presumably Home Secretary) veto on any march or protest.
If only pro-government marches are allowed we have ceased to be a democracy.
the Met's manpower… [italics mine]
The Met’s resources
...has no pleasing alliteration.
"We're actually supposed to call it "the service" now. Official vocab guidelines state that "force" is too aggressive."
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
I know that we're going round in circles. The world is. I apparently read like some blood-thirsty lunatic not caring for civilians. If there was a viable ceasefire then of course we should have it now. Yesterday. Last week.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.
I agree that calls for a ceasefire can be naive. A ceasefire has to involve agreement from both sides. If such an agreement can be reached, that’s generally a step in the right direction. I don’t know how realistic that is right now. Calls for peace are often naive, but maybe they can still have a positive effect?
Of course, when a ceasefire occurs, both sides will continue making preparations. Hamas will push out propaganda, although I don’t see how they will get arms from Iran past Israel’s blockade! Israel will still push out propaganda too. Israel will keep building settlements and arming settlers on the West Bank. A ceasefire is not an end. One hopes it provides a space in which further negotiations can take place. Again, I don’t know how realistic that is right now.
PS: I went to a listening event that Steven Wilson was going to be at last night, of his new surround mix for The Yes Album, but unfortunately he was held up and did not attend.
Hamas has been very successfully getting arms across the borders for years, despite Israel's and Egypt's best efforts. The interesting question is how?
Smuggling, I expect. It is only an interesting question if you are an Israeli or Egyptian border guard or a conspiracy theorist who believes Israel itself armed Hamas. Otherwise small rockets can fit inside containers and guns in the boot of a car.
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
Effectively that means a government (presumably Home Secretary) veto on any march or protest.
If only pro-government marches are allowed we have ceased to be a democracy.
And yes, that would be bad. On the other hand, it's a visible decision by a named person; not a committee decision in a darkened room by unnamed individuals.
Are you saying no march should ever be banned?
You already have your wish. If the Metropolitan Police wants to ban this (or any) march because of a threat to public order, they actually request the Home Secretary does it. Here is the government's account of a previous occasion this power was exercised:-
But the Metropolitan Police Service applied for permission to stop the protests amid public order fears.
After receiving the official application late on Thursday, Home Secretary Theresa May today agreed to a ban across five London boroughs.
She said: ‘Having carefully considered the legal tests in the Public Order Act and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected, I have given my consent to a ban on all marches in Tower Hamlets and four neighbouring boroughs for a 30-day period. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-agrees-march-ban
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
What you are calling for is a ceasefire. No one here has argued for a unilateral one, certainly not me.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
Israel may have to end up giving up "settleable" land for security. But they will do it by means of a one km strip inside Israel and a one km strip inside Gaza, a two km no man's land packed with an eye-watering lethal capacity to destroy anything that moves on, over or under that strip.
What is funny about that is he is clearly 'invading' another country at the moment.
Puts me in mind of a documentary on Brits in Cyprus years ago when one talking head said "I was fed up of the immigration in Britain. I felt like a foreigner in my own country". So she moved to Cyprus.
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
Effectively that means a government (presumably Home Secretary) veto on any march or protest.
If only pro-government marches are allowed we have ceased to be a democracy.
And yes, that would be bad. On the other hand, it's a visible decision by a named person; not a committee decision in a darkened room by unnamed individuals.
Are you saying no march should ever be banned?
You already have your wish. If the Metropolitan Police wants to ban this (or any) march because of a threat to public order, they actually request the Home Secretary does it. Here is the government's account of a previous occasion this power was exercised:-
But the Metropolitan Police Service applied for permission to stop the protests amid public order fears.
After receiving the official application late on Thursday, Home Secretary Theresa May today agreed to a ban across five London boroughs.
She said: ‘Having carefully considered the legal tests in the Public Order Act and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected, I have given my consent to a ban on all marches in Tower Hamlets and four neighbouring boroughs for a 30-day period. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-agrees-march-ban
Yes, and IMV that is the way it should work.
Ideally yes. But when you have a Home Secretary like Braverman it is extremely difficult to have any confidence in the process.
I now have friends, who AFAIK have never attended a political event of any kind, discussing going to a pro-Palestine march. Left wing millennials, sure, but these were people suspicious of Corbyn.
"Ceasefire now" is a potent political catalyst. How do you oppose that simple phrase, without sounding like an uncaring anorak? Banning or constricting such a march would be rightly seen as an egregious attack on British democracy, particularly when the sons and daughters of our ruling class are likely to take part.
Danger for Labour here now, I think (and having changed my mind). This is not another useful tool with which to beat the loony left. We are in the astonishing, and rather disturbing, scenario where Hamas' horrific attack might actually be highly effective for highlighting the plight of those in the Gaza strip.
Interesting set of result from the States last night Democrats doing well and surpassing expectations, Abortion rights in Ohio, Kentucky governorship, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Virginia Senate and House, unsurprisingly missed out in Mississippi. Christie making much of this and continuing to hammer Trump. Opinion polls appear to have got things wrong.
I know that we're going round in circles. The world is. I apparently read like some blood-thirsty lunatic not caring for civilians. If there was a viable ceasefire then of course we should have it now. Yesterday. Last week.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.
I agree that calls for a ceasefire can be naive. A ceasefire has to involve agreement from both sides. If such an agreement can be reached, that’s generally a step in the right direction. I don’t know how realistic that is right now. Calls for peace are often naive, but maybe they can still have a positive effect?
Of course, when a ceasefire occurs, both sides will continue making preparations. Hamas will push out propaganda, although I don’t see how they will get arms from Iran past Israel’s blockade! Israel will still push out propaganda too. Israel will keep building settlements and arming settlers on the West Bank. A ceasefire is not an end. One hopes it provides a space in which further negotiations can take place. Again, I don’t know how realistic that is right now.
PS: I went to a listening event that Steven Wilson was going to be at last night, of his new surround mix for The Yes Album, but unfortunately he was held up and did not attend.
Hamas has been very successfully getting arms across the borders for years, despite Israel's and Egypt's best efforts. The interesting question is how?
Smuggling, I expect. It is only an interesting question if you are an Israeli or Egyptian border guard or a conspiracy theorist who believes Israel itself armed Hamas. Otherwise small rockets can fit inside containers and guns in the boot of a car.
Forget the Middle East and look at Europe. The continent is awash with arms left over from the Balkan conflicts yet there are barely any in the hands of British gangs. Inadequately guarded land borders are far easier for smugglers than sea and air routes into Blighty.
Locally manufactured weapons are a different kettle of fish. Consider recent bombings in this country which were from home-made explosives rather than smuggled explosives like the IRA used, and even the IRA had to make their own bombs.
Yes, quite agree. Though I do wonder if there was going to be a different rowdy march on Armistice Day would the police tell them to get fucked or not, say Fathers for Justice who got hounded by the Met when they marched on normal days.
We seem to be living through a period of double standards where one set of protestors have been given more rights than others.
Anyway, I hope they do march on Armistice Day, it will show the country how at odds this "movement" for Hamas is with the rest of us. These terrorist supporters are being given enough rope.
There was someone on PB the other day, saying that other matches hadn’t been banned, and it was a bit weedy of pro-Jewish protestors to accede to police requests not to march.
Wonder what they think now?
'They' still think that people shouldn't portray themselves deciding to call off a march after talking to the police as it being banned. People coming from roughly the same part of the political spectrum also love to define their opinions not being respected or listened to as censorship. Both kinds of patter just makes me even less inclined to respect or listen to their victimy views.
The pressure from the police not to march was quite heavy. It was strongly implied to the potential marchers that a ban would be sought if they didn’t call it off.
It’s entirety unsurprising that the sane pressure is now being applied in the other direction.
Amazing the access to information you have that is denied to we lesser mortals. Was it a relative, someone you used to work with or a bloke in the pub that imparted this to you?
If you read the reports of what happened, the police used the same weasel wording they (and the government) are using now.
Which is completely unsurprising. “This march is banned” is quite inflammatory. “Encouraging” people not to march is so much easier on the 6 O’Clock news.
I don’t support banning marches - with the specific exception of those planned and organised to be a mass criminal act. The EDL, for example, could be reasonably considered, on past behaviour, to be organising a mass breach of the laws against racist actions.
Not banning marches includes not using weasel wording to get around not using the word “ban”.
Otherwise we will find ourselves in a world where no protests are “banned” but we are curiously lacking in protests.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
What you are calling for is a ceasefire. No one here has argued for a unilateral one, certainly not me.
That's exactly what screeching 'ceasefire' does - especially when it is targeted at only Israel.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
By the same token (debased as us is) we might have higher expectations for how sort-of-us behaves.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
What you are calling for is a ceasefire. No one here has argued for a unilateral one, certainly not me.
All a bit pointless then given Hamas have made it clear that they won't agree to a ceasefire.
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
Thank you for a non-rhetorical answer. Those seem like sensible suggestions. Perhaps we can unite around points of agreement, rather than manufacturing disagreement. (I have not called on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire.) Thanks also for acknowledging the possibility that Israel's bombing strategy may be overkill.
What is funny about that is he is clearly 'invading' another country at the moment.
Puts me in mind of a documentary on Brits in Cyprus years ago when one talking head said "I was fed up of the immigration in Britain. I felt like a foreigner in my own country". So she moved to Cyprus.
Nothing illogical about that. Maybe she just prefers countries that have different *kinds* of immigration
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
Interesting set of result from the States last night Democrats doing well and surpassing expectations, Abortion rights in Ohio, Kentucky governorship, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Virginia Senate and House, unsurprisingly missed out in Mississippi. Christie making much of this and continuing to hammer Trump. Opinion polls appear to have got things wrong.
One suggestion is that Trumpian voters didn't bother voting in midterms. It used to be that Republicans did better in midterms because Dem voters didn't bother, but maybe there's now a shift where Dems do better in midterms.
The question is whether the Trumpian voters, who are saying "Trump" in polls, will turnout next year.
Of course they shouldn't ban the march unless it is likely to result in huge disruption, violence and damage to people and properties. And even if it is likely to do these things (which it is) then it shouldn't be banned.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
By the same token (debased as us is) we might have higher expectations for how sort-of-us behaves.
But we do. I think we would be considerably more horrified had the attacks in October happened the other way around. But yes. Holding sort-of-us to a higher standard explains our attitudes to South Africa in the 80s, and why no-one really gives a fig about the inadequacies of the ANC government.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
What you are calling for is a ceasefire. No one here has argued for a unilateral one, certainly not me.
That's exactly what screeching 'ceasefire' does - especially when it is targeted at only Israel.
Perhaps it would be useful to be clearer when one is speaking about other posters here on PB, and when one is speaking about voices in the wider world.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
By the same token (debased as us is) we might have higher expectations for how sort-of-us behaves.
Which brings us back to the concept of Orientalism. Which is, in part, the idea of differential standards.
Interesting set of result from the States last night Democrats doing well and surpassing expectations, Abortion rights in Ohio, Kentucky governorship, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Virginia Senate and House, unsurprisingly missed out in Mississippi. Christie making much of this and continuing to hammer Trump. Opinion polls appear to have got things wrong.
US polls a year out from presidential elections don't have a great track record.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
Thank you for a non-rhetorical answer. Those seem like sensible suggestions. Perhaps we can unite around points of agreement, rather than manufacturing disagreement. (I have not called on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire.) Thanks also for acknowledging the possibility that Israel's bombing strategy may be overkill.
LOL. I give lots of non-rhetorical answers; neither do I try to 'manufacture' disagreement. I've also said many times that what Israel is doing *may* be overkill. But what Hamas is doing is also overkill, so I'm not sure that gets us very far.
The above is also very different to calling for a ceasefire, which can mean anything from Israel surrendering to Hamas to Hamas surrendering.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
By the same token (debased as us is) we might have higher expectations for how sort-of-us behaves.
Which brings us back to the concept of Orientalism. Which is, in part, the idea of differential standards.
I recommend the book “Occidentalism” as an antidote to the overrated book by Said. It proves that this othering is a human universal. The east does it to the west in just the same way as we do it to them
I now have friends, who AFAIK have never attended a political event of any kind, discussing going to a pro-Palestine march. Left wing millennials, sure, but these were people suspicious of Corbyn.
"Ceasefire now" is a potent political catalyst. How do you oppose that simple phrase, without sounding like an uncaring anorak? Banning or constricting such a march would be rightly seen as an egregious attack on British democracy, particularly when the sons and daughters of our ruling class are likely to take part.
Danger for Labour here now, I think (and having changed my mind). This is not another useful tool with which to beat the loony left. We are in the astonishing, and rather disturbing, scenario where Hamas' horrific attack might actually be highly effective for highlighting the plight of those in the Gaza strip.
That was, probably, the intention. Cooperation with Israel was getting the Palestinians nowhere. The blockade on Gaza looked like continuing indefinitely, settlers continued to steal land in the West Bank, and the world was forgetting about them. While Gaza is paying a terrible price for the Hamas atrocities, Palestine is at least back in the spotlight, and there is a realisation that things cannot continue as before.
Of course they shouldn't ban the march unless it is likely to result in huge disruption, violence and damage to people and properties. And even if it is likely to do these things (which it is) then it shouldn't be banned.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
Thank you for a non-rhetorical answer. Those seem like sensible suggestions. Perhaps we can unite around points of agreement, rather than manufacturing disagreement. (I have not called on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire.) Thanks also for acknowledging the possibility that Israel's bombing strategy may be overkill.
LOL. I give lots of non-rhetorical answers; neither do I try to 'manufacture' disagreement. I've also said many times that what Israel is doing *may* be overkill. But what Hamas is doing is also overkill, so I'm not sure that gets us very far.
The above is also very different to calling for a ceasefire, which can mean anything from Israel surrendering to Hamas to Hamas surrendering.
A ceasefire *should* mean both sides stop shooting.
What is funny about that is he is clearly 'invading' another country at the moment.
Puts me in mind of a documentary on Brits in Cyprus years ago when one talking head said "I was fed up of the immigration in Britain. I felt like a foreigner in my own country". So she moved to Cyprus.
Nothing illogical about that. Maybe she just prefers countries that have different *kinds* of immigration
The illogical bit is her not clicking that she herself is an immigrant. But I suppose that’s back to orientalism again.
I don't know about on here, but it's very clear that most people who are calling for a ceasefire are calling for an Israeli ceasefire. Some of them are even honest about it:
James O'Brien @mrjamesob I can only speak for myself but I think one reason why people don't call for Hamas to surrender with the same passion & hope that they call for an Israeli ceasefire is because we think Hamas is a murderous death cult immune to humanity, reason & diplomacy, and that Israel is not.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
By the same token (debased as us is) we might have higher expectations for how sort-of-us behaves.
Which brings us back to the concept of Orientalism. Which is, in part, the idea of differential standards.
I recommend the book “Occidentalism” as an antidote to the overrated book by Said. It proves that this othering is a human universal. The east does it to the west in just the same way as we do it to them
Oh East is East und West is West And never the twain shall meet Until they stand presently Before God's great judgement seat
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
Interesting set of result from the States last night Democrats doing well and surpassing expectations, Abortion rights in Ohio, Kentucky governorship, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Virginia Senate and House, unsurprisingly missed out in Mississippi. Christie making much of this and continuing to hammer Trump. Opinion polls appear to have got things wrong.
US polls a year out from presidential elections don't have a great track record.
I'm no expert on US politics, but it does seem to me that over the last two years whenever real elections are held the Dems are out-performing their opinion poll ratings by a fair margin.
Sunak must be extremely jealous, because that isn't happening to the Tories here.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
What you are calling for is a ceasefire. No one here has argued for a unilateral one, certainly not me.
All a bit pointless then given Hamas have made it clear that they won't agree to a ceasefire.
Particularly pointless in that neither Hamas nor Israel are willing to have a ceasefire.
Nonetheless a bilateral ceasefire, including hostage release is still the right way forward.
It's a dialogue of the deaf and a lot more killing to be done.
What is funny about that is he is clearly 'invading' another country at the moment.
Puts me in mind of a documentary on Brits in Cyprus years ago when one talking head said "I was fed up of the immigration in Britain. I felt like a foreigner in my own country". So she moved to Cyprus.
Nothing illogical about that. Maybe she just prefers countries that have different *kinds* of immigration
The illogical bit is her not clicking that she herself is an immigrant. But I suppose that’s back to orientalism again.
Well yes obvs. But there’s also a more sophisticated reading of her logic
Say she thinks “immigrants” = non whites, non Europeans. Many do
Then going to Cyprus - which I’m pretty sure is “whiter” than the UK, certainly urban UK - makes total sense, she’s going to a different part of her own white European civilisation
Of course you can choose to abhor her as a racist, but that’s a different argument
Of course they shouldn't ban the march unless it is likely to result in huge disruption, violence and damage to people and properties. And even if it is likely to do these things (which it is) then it shouldn't be banned.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
It's bizarre.
Different wars garner different amounts of attention. War in Ukraine has dropped off the media radar almost completely recently, the Sudan conflict never made it in the first place. This one has had a particularly steep velocity of body count mind.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
By the same token (debased as us is) we might have higher expectations for how sort-of-us behaves.
Which brings us back to the concept of Orientalism. Which is, in part, the idea of differential standards.
I recommend the book “Occidentalism” as an antidote to the overrated book by Said. It proves that this othering is a human universal. The east does it to the west in just the same way as we do it to them
Oh East is East und West is West And never the twain shall meet Until they stand presently Before God's great judgement seat
Except that the rest of the poem is about how people from two diametrically opposite cultures come to a non violent understanding, based on recognising in each other common values.
“ But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face though they come from the ends of the earth!”
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
Thank you for a non-rhetorical answer. Those seem like sensible suggestions. Perhaps we can unite around points of agreement, rather than manufacturing disagreement. (I have not called on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire.) Thanks also for acknowledging the possibility that Israel's bombing strategy may be overkill.
LOL. I give lots of non-rhetorical answers; neither do I try to 'manufacture' disagreement. I've also said many times that what Israel is doing *may* be overkill. But what Hamas is doing is also overkill, so I'm not sure that gets us very far.
The above is also very different to calling for a ceasefire, which can mean anything from Israel surrendering to Hamas to Hamas surrendering.
A ceasefire *should* mean both sides stop shooting.
Plenty of such pauses in previous wars.
Which is essentially a humanitarian pause. I think “ceasefire” is being used in this context as meaning something closer to armistice.
Part of me wonders if - for good or bad - we might see the pressure on Israel actually soften a bit in the coming days. Land war is brutal and deadly but less dramatic than bombing and the casualties happen one by one rather than en masse. Gaza city is also largely free of journalists. If most of the action happens away from the eyes and ears of Western media does that give Israel a chance to be forgotten about a bit.
Similar happened in Mariupol once the Russians surrounded it. It happened repeatedly in Syria, once Assad’s troops / Wagner had got control of an area the destruction and death became invisible and the world forgot.
Encouraging results for the Dems but it does seem like papering over the cracks re Biden .
CNN reported another national poll last night with some troubling cross breaks . Trump leading by a point in 18 to 34 year olds , Biden only 4 points ahead in Latinos . Yes I know some in here freak out at cross breaks but still .
Given that it’s amazing Trumps lead was only 4 points but Biden isn’t going to become more sprightly by next November and the Dems seem to be avoiding the reality that Biden could sink the down ballot races .
Biden needs to stop being so selfish and allow someone with a bit of life to be the nominee .
I don't know about on here, but it's very clear that most people who are calling for a ceasefire are calling for an Israeli ceasefire. Some of them are even honest about it:
James O'Brien @mrjamesob I can only speak for myself but I think one reason why people don't call for Hamas to surrender with the same passion & hope that they call for an Israeli ceasefire is because we think Hamas is a murderous death cult immune to humanity, reason & diplomacy, and that Israel is not.
What utter drivel
He admits that Hamas is a death cult intent on murdering all Israelis, but at the same time demands that Israel stop fighting them
Of course they shouldn't ban the march unless it is likely to result in huge disruption, violence and damage to people and properties. And even if it is likely to do these things (which it is) then it shouldn't be banned.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
It's bizarre.
There were huge protests against the UK's involvement in Iraq. I went to one of them. As for silence on the other hotspots, the critical difference is that the UK government isn't enthusiastically giving its support to one side. If, for example, our government were egging China on with its oppression of the Uyghurs, then there would be protests against that. Israel evokes protest, as did South Africa in the apartheid days, because of the feeling that our government is actively complicit in oppression.
What is funny about that is he is clearly 'invading' another country at the moment.
Puts me in mind of a documentary on Brits in Cyprus years ago when one talking head said "I was fed up of the immigration in Britain. I felt like a foreigner in my own country". So she moved to Cyprus.
Nothing illogical about that. Maybe she just prefers countries that have different *kinds* of immigration
The illogical bit is her not clicking that she herself is an immigrant. But I suppose that’s back to orientalism again.
Well yes obvs. But there’s also a more sophisticated reading of her logic
Say she thinks “immigrants” = non whites, non Europeans. Many do
Then going to Cyprus - which I’m pretty sure is “whiter” than the UK, certainly urban UK - makes total sense, she’s going to a different part of her own white European civilisation
Of course you can choose to abhor her as a racist, but that’s a different argument
I’m not sure the context is that clear though. From memory the doc was in the mid 2010s and pre Brexit. The immigration everyone was obsessing about was European and Christian, from the East and South East. There was no indication that what she disliked was dark skinned people or other religions.
What is funny about that is he is clearly 'invading' another country at the moment.
Puts me in mind of a documentary on Brits in Cyprus years ago when one talking head said "I was fed up of the immigration in Britain. I felt like a foreigner in my own country". So she moved to Cyprus.
Nothing illogical about that. Maybe she just prefers countries that have different *kinds* of immigration
The illogical bit is her not clicking that she herself is an immigrant. But I suppose that’s back to orientalism again.
Well yes obvs. But there’s also a more sophisticated reading of her logic
Say she thinks “immigrants” = non whites, non Europeans. Many do
Then going to Cyprus - which I’m pretty sure is “whiter” than the UK, certainly urban UK - makes total sense, she’s going to a different part of her own white European civilisation
Of course you can choose to abhor her as a racist, but that’s a different argument
It can get a little more complex than that. When I started going out with Mrs J, a relative started saying how immigrants in the UK are a problem. She then realised what she was saying, and added: "But not you dear, you're not an immigrant". Meanwhile, one of that relative's best friends grew up in Germany during the war. But obviously not an immigrant...
For many, 'immigrants' tend to be the strange and alien people who may, or may not, have been born abroad. People who have emigrated from the same country, with the same skin colour and the same accent, who are known to them are oddly not seen as immigrants...
(Then there was the loudmouth obnoxious Australian family friend who also railed against 'immigrants'. Despite being Australian...)
What is funny about that is he is clearly 'invading' another country at the moment.
Puts me in mind of a documentary on Brits in Cyprus years ago when one talking head said "I was fed up of the immigration in Britain. I felt like a foreigner in my own country". So she moved to Cyprus.
Nothing illogical about that. Maybe she just prefers countries that have different *kinds* of immigration
The illogical bit is her not clicking that she herself is an immigrant. But I suppose that’s back to orientalism again.
Well yes obvs. But there’s also a more sophisticated reading of her logic
Say she thinks “immigrants” = non whites, non Europeans. Many do
Then going to Cyprus - which I’m pretty sure is “whiter” than the UK, certainly urban UK - makes total sense, she’s going to a different part of her own white European civilisation
Of course you can choose to abhor her as a racist, but that’s a different argument
I’m not sure the context is that clear though. From memory the doc was in the mid 2010s and pre Brexit. The immigration everyone was obsessing about was European and Christian, from the East and South East. There was no indication that what she disliked was dark skinned people or other religions.
Was everyone obsessing about European immigration? Or was that just the immigration that could be talked about without appearing racist?
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
By the same token (debased as us is) we might have higher expectations for how sort-of-us behaves.
Which brings us back to the concept of Orientalism. Which is, in part, the idea of differential standards.
I recommend the book “Occidentalism” as an antidote to the overrated book by Said. It proves that this othering is a human universal. The east does it to the west in just the same way as we do it to them
Oh East is East und West is West And never the twain shall meet Until they stand presently Before God's great judgement seat
Except that the rest of the poem is about how people from two diametrically opposite cultures come to a non violent understanding, based on recognising in each other common values.
“ But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face though they come from the ends of the earth!”
Yeah I know that, but most people only know the first and second lines! There was even a comedy in the 1980s called "Never the Twain" (Windsor Davies with Donald Sinden).
Comments
But you can't ascribe genocidal intent to all who are calling for ceasefire. For example some Jewish organisations are.
We seem to be living through a period of double standards where one set of protestors have been given more rights than others.
Anyway, I hope they do march on Armistice Day, it will show the country how at odds this "movement" for Hamas is with the rest of us. These terrorist supporters are being given enough rope.
Which is not ideal.
New election laws delayed after EU and social media giants object
Electoral Reform Act was passed by the Oireachtas last year, and the Electoral Commission was set up this year to run and monitor elections and referendums
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/11/08/objections-by-eu-and-internet-companies-delay-new-election-laws/
2) pump 2 parts kerosene or diesel to 1 part petrol down the hole. Add some aluminium powder while you’re at it.
3) follow up with some white phosphorus.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the views of the organisers and the police should be vigilant about preventing antisemitism on our streets but this march should undoubtedly go ahead. Unlike Gaza this is a functioning democracy with a right to protest.
Note that quite a few of them are not being "sent back", since they were born in Pakistan.
A refugee status not entirely dissimilar to that of the Palestinian diaspora.
On the "use less bombs" point, that could happen. And the fighting goes street to street which will be even more destructive and bloody. We have learned that lesson so many times - Stalingrad, Berlin, Fallujah etc.
When the terrorists have embedded themselves inside and underneath civilians, when they see themselves and the civilians as expendable, when they won't stop until they win or everyone is dead, there is no way to stop them with less violence. Sadly.
Wonder what they think now?
Re-opening serious talks with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and stopping further land seizures by settlers would help. If people see progress through peaceful means then they are less supportive of the fanatics.
Over 100 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank by armed settlers and IDF troops in the last month and further lands seized. This is overshadowed by events in Gaza, but some Israelis find it a convenient time to expand.
We should certainly have asked them to run HS2 for a bit....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67281691
200000 deported to date.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I want it on camera. I want the “gas the Jews” types found and named. I want them on display. Be the Nazi you are.
They exist anyway. Pretending they don’t exist is stupid.
Of course, when a ceasefire occurs, both sides will continue making preparations. Hamas will push out propaganda, although I don’t see how they will get arms from Iran past Israel’s blockade! Israel will still push out propaganda too. Israel will keep building settlements and arming settlers on the West Bank. A ceasefire is not an end. One hopes it provides a space in which further negotiations can take place. Again, I don’t know how realistic that is right now.
PS: I went to a listening event that Steven Wilson was going to be at last night, of his new surround mix for The Yes Album, but unfortunately he was held up and did not attend.
Then they managed to engage a somewhat more mainstream group of fellow-travellers.
Then the SWP imploded.
Looking at the current event, it's the same people Lindsey German, Chris Nineham et al, the leadership of the same small group of Trades Unions (NEU, RMT, UCU). Organisations such as CND. And various fellow travellers - the Absolute Boy, Ken Loach, Claudia Webbe and so on.
I wonder what they will say about Mr Starmer ?
If we won't take any of the refugees - which we evidently won't - and won't help fund their care in neighbouring states like Pakistan, then any outrage expressed is entirely synthetic.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
Full marks to the IDF for apparently giving this level of warning for evacuation, but it does have me scratching my head. With this level of warning, you're not going to successfully target Hamas operatives using these buildings, so what are you doing other than destruction. If they're Hamas meeting places/organisational offices within the residential blocks then you can destroy those, but hard to believe that's all that disruptive -surely they'd have docs etc distributed and the timelines give time to recover some things anyway. What else? Weapons stores - also time to shift some stuff, it seems. Bomb factories - maybe more effective.
Being firmly in the chairbourne division, I applaud being this specific and giving people time to get out, but I struggle to see what is then gained by actually flattening the buildings.
Also, it reads like a film script, doesn't it? Add in a later emotional meeting with the person who phoned the warning and hoover up the Oscars.
The Metropolitan Police statement refers to the 1986 Act. It ends:-
“But at this time, the intelligence surrounding the potential for serious disorder this weekend does not meet the threshold to apply for a ban.
“The organisers have shown complete willingness to stay away from the Cenotaph and Whitehall and have no intention of disrupting the nation’s remembrance events. Should this change, we’ve been clear we will use powers and conditions available to us to protect locations and events of national importance at all costs.
“Officers will continue to take swift and robust action against any breakaway groups or individuals intent on using legitimate, lawful protest for their own agenda through Saturday and Sunday.
“If over the next few days the intelligence evolves, and we reach a threshold where there is a real threat of serious disorder we will approach the Home Secretary. Right now, we remain focused on the facts in front of us and developing our plan to ensure the highest levels of protection for events throughout the weekend.
Notes to editors
The Met can apply for a public procession to be banned under Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 if there is a risk of serious public disorder.
The legislation makes it clear that other conditions, such as on the location of the protest, should be considered before a complete ban is imposed.
https://news.met.police.uk/news/met-will-do-everything-it-can-to-prevent-disruption-to-remembrance-events-474935
I listened to a BBC WS interview with the Deputy Leader of Hezbollah this morning - interesting. Two snippets:
1 - The Arab League have Hezbollah classified as a terrorist organisation. I did not know that but it's not a surprise given that Hezbollah is in large measure an instrument of Iran, and the centuries long Arab-Persian divide.
2 - BBC quoting Hamas figures wrt people killed.
It starts at about 1:40 on BBC WS Newsday this morning:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172z078x50yhdv
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbUC-UaAxE
So it is done
The long, horrible, history of war is often of things being done which are stupid or counterproductive. But they were easy to do.
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
Wacking Tommy Robinson and Co. with big sticks is in their core skill set & something the Met would enjoy.
And be the kind of policing we could all applaud for a change.
Should reduce the potential for election shenanigans in the state next year.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunak-lines-himself-up-as-the-next-nick-clegg-7jqljkq8m
It’s entirety unsurprising that the same pressure is now being applied in the other direction.
Meanwhile Michelle Obama is 12/1.
Yesterday's elections suggest that Trump has no chance against a competent candidate.
https://twitter.com/ActivePatriotUK/status/1720753187898937744?t=1b9f7zuykvDookS7wUAw0Q&s=19
Conflicts which generate heat here are those which in some way mirror ourselves. Arguably, and there is much to debate here and many uncertainties, there is a group in the west who are consumed with self hatred and hate the group elsewhere which is most 'like us', and another group consumed with self glorification and hate the group elsewhere that is 'unlike us'.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:#
*) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel
*) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders.
*) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties.
*) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles.
*) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
https://themedialine.org/top-stories/made-in-gaza-hamas-rockets-the-product-of-foreign-aid-and-smuggled-material/
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
"Ceasefire now" is a potent political catalyst. How do you oppose that simple phrase, without sounding like an uncaring anorak? Banning or constricting such a march would be rightly seen as an egregious attack on British democracy, particularly when the sons and daughters of our ruling class are likely to take part.
Danger for Labour here now, I think (and having changed my mind). This is not another useful tool with which to beat the loony left. We are in the astonishing, and rather disturbing, scenario where Hamas' horrific attack might actually be highly effective for highlighting the plight of those in the Gaza strip.
Locally manufactured weapons are a different kettle of fish. Consider recent bombings in this country which were from home-made explosives rather than smuggled explosives like the IRA used, and even the IRA had to make their own bombs.
Which is completely unsurprising. “This march is banned” is quite inflammatory. “Encouraging” people not to march is so much easier on the 6 O’Clock news.
I don’t support banning marches - with the specific exception of those planned and organised to be a mass criminal act. The EDL, for example, could be reasonably considered, on past behaviour, to be organising a mass breach of the laws against racist actions.
Not banning marches includes not using weasel wording to get around not using the word “ban”.
Otherwise we will find ourselves in a world where no protests are “banned” but we are curiously lacking in protests.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
The question is whether the Trumpian voters, who are saying "Trump" in polls, will turnout next year.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
It's bizarre.
But yes. Holding sort-of-us to a higher standard explains our attitudes to South Africa in the 80s, and why no-one really gives a fig about the inadequacies of the ANC government.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
The above is also very different to calling for a ceasefire, which can mean anything from Israel surrendering to Hamas to Hamas surrendering.
Plenty of such pauses in previous wars.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1718217520405000283
James O'Brien @mrjamesob
I can only speak for myself but I think one reason why people don't call for Hamas to surrender with the same passion & hope that they call for an Israeli ceasefire is because we think Hamas is a murderous death cult immune to humanity, reason & diplomacy, and that Israel is not.
And never the twain shall meet
Until they stand presently
Before God's great judgement seat
Sunak must be extremely jealous, because that isn't happening to the Tories here.
Nonetheless a bilateral ceasefire, including hostage release is still the right way forward.
It's a dialogue of the deaf and a lot more killing to be done.
Say she thinks “immigrants” = non whites, non Europeans. Many do
Then going to Cyprus - which I’m pretty sure is “whiter” than the UK, certainly urban UK - makes total sense, she’s going to a different part of her own white European civilisation
Of course you can choose to abhor her as a racist, but that’s a different argument
“ But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face though they come from the ends of the earth!”
Part of me wonders if - for good or bad - we might see the pressure on Israel actually soften a bit in the coming days. Land war is brutal and deadly but less dramatic than bombing and the casualties happen one by one rather than en masse. Gaza city is also largely free of journalists. If most of the action happens away from the eyes and ears of Western media does that give Israel a chance to be forgotten about a bit.
Similar happened in Mariupol once the Russians surrounded it. It happened repeatedly in Syria, once Assad’s troops / Wagner had got control of an area the destruction and death became invisible and the world forgot.
CNN reported another national poll last night with some troubling cross breaks . Trump leading by a point in 18 to 34 year olds , Biden only 4 points ahead in Latinos . Yes I know some in here freak out at cross breaks but still .
Given that it’s amazing Trumps lead was only 4 points but Biden isn’t going to become more sprightly by next November and the Dems seem to be avoiding the reality that Biden could sink the down ballot races .
Biden needs to stop being so selfish and allow someone with a bit of life to be the nominee .
# Only Gretchen Whitmer can save the Dems .
He admits that Hamas is a death cult intent on murdering all Israelis, but at the same time demands that Israel stop fighting them
For many, 'immigrants' tend to be the strange and alien people who may, or may not, have been born abroad. People who have emigrated from the same country, with the same skin colour and the same accent, who are known to them are oddly not seen as immigrants...
(Then there was the loudmouth obnoxious Australian family friend who also railed against 'immigrants'. Despite being Australian...)
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_the_Twain