Meanwhile, as we drone on and on about Israel, a jihadi militia has just slaughtered 1000 black Africans - of all ages - in Darfur, in an outrageous pogrom - along with accompanying videos celebrating the violence, with an ISIS style soundtrack
Virtually every PB-er blatting on about the Palestinian cause must, by definition, be anti-Semitic - unless they have been equally and vocally outraged by all these other horrors, some far worse than Gaza
I find that logic inescapable. Feel free to point out the flaw
A few points I would make.
1. It isn't possible for every individual person to protest against every individual wrong, and protesting against one rather than another isn't necessarily indicative of anything. Not everything is a conspiracy.
2. One distinction that people do sometimes draw is the extent to which Britain is involved, and therefore the extent to which protests in Britain might influence the government here to change policy, which might have some impact, however small, on the issue in question.
So, the British government has provided robust diplomatic support to Israel. To my knowledge, no member of the government has spoken in support of jihadi militias in Darfur. So there's a British government action to protest against in one case and not the other.
3. If you did want to make this argument the more appropriate comparison is with Yemen. I know a few people who have spent many years campaigning against Britain supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in the war in Yemen. They would have loved to have more people join their protests.
A fair point about the UK government
Nonetheless, I’d say TOTAL silence on all these horrors followed by screeds of outrage about Gaza is, indeed, quite strongly indicative of anti-Semitism
There’s a couple of suspects on here. Worse, I have some acquaintances of whom this is true. I now realise they are anti-Semitic - and previously odd behaviour suddenly is explained. A pattern is revealed
It is a melancholy revelation
The odd thing is that they would object very strongly if accused. It is what I call passive (as opposed to active) anti-semitism. They don't objectively hate the Jews. But they are deeply unsympathetic on a number of levels and apply a special set of standards to Israel which they do not to any other nation and to Jews not to any other group.
Jeremy Corbyn is a classic passive Anti-Semite.
I think going on about anti-semitism is missing the poin, actually.
What unites the so-called pro-Palestine movement, is that they are all profoundly anti-Western. They hate capitalism, western values, the USA, etc., etc.
That what unites tankie lefties, and Islamist misognists.
And Israel is of the west. People vote there. They consume. They dance and rave. They have a free press.
That's why these people are out on the streets. That's why no-one is demonstrating about the Uyghurs or the various genocides being committed across the world by vicious authoritarian regimes. Those regimes are anti-Western.
So, yes, there are certainly anti-semites mixed in. But that is not the unifying principle. They just loathe the society they find themselves living in.
I think's that largely correct. If, by some bizarre quirk of history, Israel was a Christian state but still occupied Palestine, still received massive support from America and the religious Right in particular, had still been buddies with apartheid South Africa etc. etc. then I imagine pretty much the same people would still dislike it. In contrast, had a Jewish Israel modelled itself on, say, Castro's Cuba then its supporters from the western Right would be much more thin on the ground I suspect.
Which also explains the Left's journey towards anti-semitism. Because Israel initially was the little guy, whilst their kibbutzes were literally modelled on socialist/communal living. They were great and a worthy cause.
But then they only went and stopped being the victim, turned the table on their bullies, and left the ranks of the powerless and became one of the powerful and hence the Left loathes them.
Meanwhile, as we drone on and on about Israel, a jihadi militia has just slaughtered 1000 black Africans - of all ages - in Darfur, in an outrageous pogrom - along with accompanying videos celebrating the violence, with an ISIS style soundtrack
Virtually every PB-er blatting on about the Palestinian cause must, by definition, be anti-Semitic - unless they have been equally and vocally outraged by all these other horrors, some far worse than Gaza
I find that logic inescapable. Feel free to point out the flaw
A few points I would make.
1. It isn't possible for every individual person to protest against every individual wrong, and protesting against one rather than another isn't necessarily indicative of anything. Not everything is a conspiracy.
2. One distinction that people do sometimes draw is the extent to which Britain is involved, and therefore the extent to which protests in Britain might influence the government here to change policy, which might have some impact, however small, on the issue in question.
So, the British government has provided robust diplomatic support to Israel. To my knowledge, no member of the government has spoken in support of jihadi militias in Darfur. So there's a British government action to protest against in one case and not the other.
3. If you did want to make this argument the more appropriate comparison is with Yemen. I know a few people who have spent many years campaigning against Britain supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in the war in Yemen. They would have loved to have more people join their protests.
A fair point about the UK government
Nonetheless, I’d say TOTAL silence on all these horrors followed by screeds of outrage about Gaza is, indeed, quite strongly indicative of anti-Semitism
There’s a couple of suspects on here. Worse, I have some acquaintances of whom this is true. I now realise they are anti-Semitic - and previously odd behaviour suddenly is explained. A pattern is revealed
It is a melancholy revelation
The odd thing is that they would object very strongly if accused. It is what I call passive (as opposed to active) anti-semitism. They don't objectively hate the Jews. But they are deeply unsympathetic on a number of levels and apply a special set of standards to Israel which they do not to any other nation and to Jews not to any other group.
Jeremy Corbyn is a classic passive Anti-Semite.
Your point may be correct in general but in the specific case of Corbyn I think is incorrect. Corbyn has taken a strong position against what he sees as oppression in any number of international settings over the years, including Latin America, the Middle East outside of Israel/Palestine, and of course apartheid South Africa. There is barely an unfashionable international cause that has not had Corbyn turn up to endorse them in some cold and draughty hall. I would accuse Corbyn of being dumb and careless in his ideological bedfellows, and lacking in imagination, but I would strongly disagree that he has focused monomaniacally on the sins of Israel to the exclusion of others. None of this means that I view Corbyn as anything other than an utter disaster for the Labour Party, I just don't think your characterisation of him is accurate or fair.
Corbyn has associated himself with every openly anti-semitic organisation there is. Marched behind their banners. On their marches. Shared their platforms. He claims to be against all kinds of racism but aligns himself with anti-semite after anti-semite.
My exit from the Labour Party came as a result of the official "how not to be an anti-semite" booklet sent to all CLPs with Mandatory AS Training for members. So I sat there reading the Corbyn authored / signed "AS is wrong and we will not tolerate it" forward. And looked at newly released images of him marching on a pro-Palestine march directly behind overtly anti-semitic banners. Concluding "bugger this" at which point I left and emailed my resignation.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
When it comes to political assassinations, Israel makes Putin look like a rank amateur.
Meanwhile, as we drone on and on about Israel, a jihadi militia has just slaughtered 1000 black Africans - of all ages - in Darfur, in an outrageous pogrom - along with accompanying videos celebrating the violence, with an ISIS style soundtrack
Virtually every PB-er blatting on about the Palestinian cause must, by definition, be anti-Semitic - unless they have been equally and vocally outraged by all these other horrors, some far worse than Gaza
I find that logic inescapable. Feel free to point out the flaw
And yet, you yourself have failed to utter a single 'BRACE' in respect of Sudan.
So by your own inescapable logic...
But I don’t blat on about Israel/Palestine either. I make noble attempts to divert threads to other issues - from AI to Sindy to the horror of pets - sometimes to the annoyance of others. But if the site is determined to discuss this one issue there’s a limit to what anyone can do
In all honesty I don’t care THAT much about Darfur OR Israel - or Yemen or Syria or the Uighurs. It bores me
That probably makes me an appalling human but at least I’m consistently appalling
How can you ceasefire against this? Israel has no choice but to level Gaza until Hamas is purged
“Hamas official Osama Hamdan in an interiew with Al-Liwaa newspaper says if there was a way to turn back time, Hamas would carry out Oct 7th attack again. Said strategy was to prevent Israel from being a 'natural entity' in the region.”
A classic example of why Israel should adopt a policy of assassination. This bloke sits in Beirut taking part in directing Hamas attacks.
I don’t agree with you on most of the Whole Gaza Thing, but I completely agree on assassinating the Hamas leaders. They are genocidal c*nts. Drone the fuck out of them. Shoot them in the streets of Qatar and hang the consequences. Make THEM suffer personally and decapitate the jihadi leadership - it might spare lives on all sides
I am mystified why this doesn’t happen. America has a carrier group parked off Tel Aviv
"Drone the fuck out of them" ... that sounds extremely muscular. I can imagine that being said by a Big Cheese in a highly charged meeting.
In case anybody didn't notice, results of yesterday's off-year general elections in number of US states gave major wins to Democrats over Republicans:
> re-election of Gov. Andy Beshear in the otherwise Red State of Kentucky.
> regained control of Virginia House of Delegates and retained control of state Senate.
> passage of Ohio constitutional amendment establishing state right to abortion
On the other hand, in the Deep South in Deep Red state of Mississippi, tarnished Republican incumbent Gov. Tate Reeves managed to prevail over his Democratic challenger.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Assassinations in third countries are, at best, a legally grey area, even between states at war. In theory, it's banned because using violence in that third country, without the permission of that country, is a hostile act; in practice, governments tend to be more understanding and pragmatic about its use, depending on the circumstances.
However, in this case, there's certainly a justifiable argument that the Hamas leadership are fair game, even in third countries, and that hosting an active terrorist regime is of itself a hostile act and so one that nullifies the usual protections. As you say, the considerations are more about subsequent political and diplomatic ramifications rather than legalities.
How can you ceasefire against this? Israel has no choice but to level Gaza until Hamas is purged
“Hamas official Osama Hamdan in an interiew with Al-Liwaa newspaper says if there was a way to turn back time, Hamas would carry out Oct 7th attack again. Said strategy was to prevent Israel from being a 'natural entity' in the region.”
A classic example of why Israel should adopt a policy of assassination. This bloke sits in Beirut taking part in directing Hamas attacks.
I don’t agree with you on most of the Whole Gaza Thing, but I completely agree on assassinating the Hamas leaders. They are genocidal c*nts. Drone the fuck out of them. Shoot them in the streets of Qatar and hang the consequences. Make THEM suffer personally and decapitate the jihadi leadership - it might spare lives on all sides
I am mystified why this doesn’t happen. America has a carrier group parked off Tel Aviv
It is reflected in a wider point I have never really understood. We are happy to send hundreds of thousands of men to kill each other and to kill civilians who get in the way and yet we (as an international community) balk at targeted killings of those drctly responsible for the wars, murders and terrorism around the world. I assume it is because the people making decisions are the leaders who fear that they themselves will become the targets. So there is a tacit agreement even betwen enemies that assassination of leaders is off the table.
Israel should look back to how they behaved in the 70s and take lessons from that on dealing with terrorists.
Funnily enough, I noticed the same point made in a chapter of GRR Martin's Fire and Blood that I was reading yesterday. King Jaehaerys of Westeros threatens the leader of Braavos with military retribution for stolen dragon eggs, but backs down when reminded of the skill of Braavosi assassins despite the far superior military strength of the Westerosi armies.
Meanwhile, as we drone on and on about Israel, a jihadi militia has just slaughtered 1000 black Africans - of all ages - in Darfur, in an outrageous pogrom - along with accompanying videos celebrating the violence, with an ISIS style soundtrack
Virtually every PB-er blatting on about the Palestinian cause must, by definition, be anti-Semitic - unless they have been equally and vocally outraged by all these other horrors, some far worse than Gaza
I find that logic inescapable. Feel free to point out the flaw
A few points I would make.
1. It isn't possible for every individual person to protest against every individual wrong, and protesting against one rather than another isn't necessarily indicative of anything. Not everything is a conspiracy.
2. One distinction that people do sometimes draw is the extent to which Britain is involved, and therefore the extent to which protests in Britain might influence the government here to change policy, which might have some impact, however small, on the issue in question.
So, the British government has provided robust diplomatic support to Israel. To my knowledge, no member of the government has spoken in support of jihadi militias in Darfur. So there's a British government action to protest against in one case and not the other.
3. If you did want to make this argument the more appropriate comparison is with Yemen. I know a few people who have spent many years campaigning against Britain supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in the war in Yemen. They would have loved to have more people join their protests.
A fair point about the UK government
Nonetheless, I’d say TOTAL silence on all these horrors followed by screeds of outrage about Gaza is, indeed, quite strongly indicative of anti-Semitism
There’s a couple of suspects on here. Worse, I have some acquaintances of whom this is true. I now realise they are anti-Semitic - and previously odd behaviour suddenly is explained. A pattern is revealed
It is a melancholy revelation
The odd thing is that they would object very strongly if accused. It is what I call passive (as opposed to active) anti-semitism. They don't objectively hate the Jews. But they are deeply unsympathetic on a number of levels and apply a special set of standards to Israel which they do not to any other nation and to Jews not to any other group.
Jeremy Corbyn is a classic passive Anti-Semite.
I think going on about anti-semitism is missing the poin, actually.
What unites the so-called pro-Palestine movement, is that they are all profoundly anti-Western. They hate capitalism, western values, the USA, etc., etc.
That what unites tankie lefties, and Islamist misognists.
And Israel is of the west. People vote there. They consume. They dance and rave. They have a free press.
That's why these people are out on the streets. That's why no-one is demonstrating about the Uyghurs or the various genocides being committed across the world by vicious authoritarian regimes. Those regimes are anti-Western.
So, yes, there are certainly anti-semites mixed in. But that is not the unifying principle. They just loathe the society they find themselves living in.
But western values and capitalism are Jewish, so the conspiracy nuts insist. The Jews have all the money, control all the media, control all the politicians. When the World Economic Forum is accused of seeking to stop citizens doing [insert paranoia here] it is the Jews who are the WEC.
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 ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
That's like a football fan calling for the sacking of yet another manager when the true problem is the squad of players and the results already conceded - refusing to recognise the impact of the disruption that the change would bring, the cost of it, or that there simply might not be anyone better available who wants or is able to take on the job.
With the difference that the fans probably have more idea about who might make an effective manager of their team.
You have a higher opinion of the average football fan that I do.
Indeed, I should have added to the issues of the football metaphor that displacement activity in changing the manager cannot make up for, or mask, a culture of entitlement and living off past victories, and a failure to understand the extent to which the game and other clubs have moved on. The fan expectation is that replaying old methods (but now with players, rules and systems unsuited to them), will somehow restore the glory days. They won't.
Or a lower opinion of the Conservative party members.
I know (or knew) plenty of Conservative party members. I doubt your contention.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Little known fact: the Armenians successfully targeted quite a few of the top Ottoman officials responsible for the genocide. Sometimes years later, when they were randomly walking in Berlin or wherever
It’s recorded in the Yerevan Holocaust Museum. And I confess I felt internally exultant when I read it. YES. KILL THEM
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'll call it "the service" when it provides one.
But it does provide one. Just not the one you'd like... . In some military jargons, the target of the attack is "serviced". So a tank will "service" a building.
(Incidentally the "service" euphenism has been around since the mid-90s. It's even a line of dialogue in The Thin Blue Line, if anybody remembers that )
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Could be a developing story here - the inquiry has been informed by the Post Office that 363,000 emails may have potentially gone missing - and these are emails from post-2012 - ie as the Post Office went into cover-up mode. The data seems to have been lost in the shift..."
We're possibly witnessing the largest criminal conspiracy in UK history.
This is a statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act. The inquiry has the right to require witnesses to provide relevant information under s21 and failure to do so is an offence under s35. The maximum sentence is 51 weeks. I think it is long past time Sir Wyn Williams started using these powers. His concern may be that material provided under such an order would potentially prejudice more wide ranging prosecutions but the clock continues to tick.
The PO management appear to be totally in contempt of the inquiry. Putting them personally in prison appears to be the only logical way forward at this point.
How can you ceasefire against this? Israel has no choice but to level Gaza until Hamas is purged
“Hamas official Osama Hamdan in an interiew with Al-Liwaa newspaper says if there was a way to turn back time, Hamas would carry out Oct 7th attack again. Said strategy was to prevent Israel from being a 'natural entity' in the region.”
A classic example of why Israel should adopt a policy of assassination. This bloke sits in Beirut taking part in directing Hamas attacks.
I don’t agree with you on most of the Whole Gaza Thing, but I completely agree on assassinating the Hamas leaders. They are genocidal c*nts. Drone the fuck out of them. Shoot them in the streets of Qatar and hang the consequences. Make THEM suffer personally and decapitate the jihadi leadership - it might spare lives on all sides
I am mystified why this doesn’t happen. America has a carrier group parked off Tel Aviv
"Drone the fuck out of them" ... that sounds extremely muscular. I can imagine that being said by a Big Cheese in a highly charged meeting.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama’s favourite method of execution.
How can you ceasefire against this? Israel has no choice but to level Gaza until Hamas is purged
“Hamas official Osama Hamdan in an interiew with Al-Liwaa newspaper says if there was a way to turn back time, Hamas would carry out Oct 7th attack again. Said strategy was to prevent Israel from being a 'natural entity' in the region.”
A classic example of why Israel should adopt a policy of assassination. This bloke sits in Beirut taking part in directing Hamas attacks.
I don’t agree with you on most of the Whole Gaza Thing, but I completely agree on assassinating the Hamas leaders. They are genocidal c*nts. Drone the fuck out of them. Shoot them in the streets of Qatar and hang the consequences. Make THEM suffer personally and decapitate the jihadi leadership - it might spare lives on all sides
I am mystified why this doesn’t happen. America has a carrier group parked off Tel Aviv
It is reflected in a wider point I have never really understood. We are happy to send hundreds of thousands of men to kill each other and to kill civilians who get in the way and yet we (as an international community) balk at targeted killings of those drctly responsible for the wars, murders and terrorism around the world. I assume it is because the people making decisions are the leaders who fear that they themselves will become the targets. So there is a tacit agreement even betwen enemies that assassination of leaders is off the table.
See Executive Orders EO 11905 (Ford, 1976), EO 12036 (Carter, 1978), and EO 12333 (Reagan, 1981), although it's nowadays overlooked for terrorism.
How can you ceasefire against this? Israel has no choice but to level Gaza until Hamas is purged
“Hamas official Osama Hamdan in an interiew with Al-Liwaa newspaper says if there was a way to turn back time, Hamas would carry out Oct 7th attack again. Said strategy was to prevent Israel from being a 'natural entity' in the region.”
A classic example of why Israel should adopt a policy of assassination. This bloke sits in Beirut taking part in directing Hamas attacks.
I don’t agree with you on most of the Whole Gaza Thing, but I completely agree on assassinating the Hamas leaders. They are genocidal c*nts. Drone the fuck out of them. Shoot them in the streets of Qatar and hang the consequences. Make THEM suffer personally and decapitate the jihadi leadership - it might spare lives on all sides
I am mystified why this doesn’t happen. America has a carrier group parked off Tel Aviv
"Drone the fuck out of them" ... that sounds extremely muscular. I can imagine that being said by a Big Cheese in a highly charged meeting.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama’s favourite method of execution.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Nothing will work in the short term. You really think Israel flattening Gaza and killing thousands of civilians will make them any safer as a country? All it makes is the next generation of terrorists. Longer term there is a complex set of agreements, compromises and hard decisions to be made to bring peace and the current Hamas leadership are never going to agree to that. They are a roadblock to peace and need to be removed. I would say the same about Netenyahu and the ultra right wing parties in Israel but I would settle for just putting them in jail for a very long time as that is the civilised thing to do.
No chance of that. There are far more football fans than there are rapid Tory voters. And with Braverman now actively hopping to get the sack its very difficult to object to Linekar calling her out over things like the tents row.
On topic, I obviously agree that in a free country that people have a right protest.
However, we should also take account of the fact that the protests have a burden on society such as policing costs and the impact on people who live and work in Central London.
Bearing in mind, that there have already been protests on previous weekends, and that there will likely be protests on future weekends too, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the authorities to say 'no' to this one particular weekend.
It's worth adding that these protests are pretty futile regardless as the UK government has no control over Israel's actions.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
I don't know about anyone else but when I talk about Palestinian casualties being disproportionately high it's not based on some noddy view that International Law says it has to be 1:1 or not more than X:1 or anything like that. I'm just using the word 'disproportionate' in its plain and simple (non legal) meaning. Shockingly high.
Also I find the whole idea that being 'at war' is a justifier of acts that would be criminal otherwise to be rather flimsy. Eg look at Russia/Ukraine. There's a 'war' where the triggering event was Vladimir Putin unleashing a completely unprovoked invasion on another country. I don't see a clear and massive distinction between that and mass murder, whatever the law says.
But, war does indeed. justify (some) acts that would otherwise be treated as criminal. That's been the case ever since people invented rules of war.
Putin orders that invasion. What (morally) distinguishes it from mass murder?
Morally, one can argue that any act of military aggression is mass murder, but the fact that the actor in this case is a State, means that it will not be treated legally as mass murder.
Although people were convicted of crimes against peace at Nuremburg, that has never been truly established as a ground for prosecution. In practice, war crimes prosecutions focus on ius in bello, rather than ius ad bellum, that is, the conduct of wars, rather than the right to wage war.
Russia's President, generals, and soldiers, can certainly be accused of mass murder, torture, pillage, maltreatment of civilians, during the course of waging this war.
That's the problem. We look at how (say) Russia is conducting itself in Ukraine, where various 'rules' are meant to be followed and if not we're in 'war crime' territory, but for me starting the war itself is a crime. It's a crime because there was no justification for it. It's the biggest crime of all since it leads to all the rest. So, to clarify what I mean, even if Russia were to commit no 'war crimes' in their prosecution of the war, nevertheless Putin (plus collaborators) is surely guilty of a prosecutable crime (starting a war), assuming he could be brought to a relevant court and charged, and if not why not?
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Nothing will work in the short term. You really think Israel flattening Gaza and killing thousands of civilians will make them any safer as a country? All it makes is the next generation of terrorists. Longer term there is a complex set of agreements, compromises and hard decisions to be made to bring peace and the current Hamas leadership are never going to agree to that. They are a roadblock to peace and need to be removed. I would say the same about Netenyahu and the ultra right wing parties in Israel but I would settle for just putting them in jail for a very long time as that is the civilised thing to do.
From what I have been reading there is going to be a sizeable majority of Israelis who will be happy to lock Bibi up for ever once this is over. He was just about clinging on to power by doing outrageous deals with outrageous people. Then this happened, and he is done.
Meanwhile, as we drone on and on about Israel, a jihadi militia has just slaughtered 1000 black Africans - of all ages - in Darfur, in an outrageous pogrom - along with accompanying videos celebrating the violence, with an ISIS style soundtrack
Virtually every PB-er blatting on about the Palestinian cause must, by definition, be anti-Semitic - unless they have been equally and vocally outraged by all these other horrors, some far worse than Gaza
I find that logic inescapable. Feel free to point out the flaw
A few points I would make.
1. It isn't possible for every individual person to protest against every individual wrong, and protesting against one rather than another isn't necessarily indicative of anything. Not everything is a conspiracy.
2. One distinction that people do sometimes draw is the extent to which Britain is involved, and therefore the extent to which protests in Britain might influence the government here to change policy, which might have some impact, however small, on the issue in question.
So, the British government has provided robust diplomatic support to Israel. To my knowledge, no member of the government has spoken in support of jihadi militias in Darfur. So there's a British government action to protest against in one case and not the other.
3. If you did want to make this argument the more appropriate comparison is with Yemen. I know a few people who have spent many years campaigning against Britain supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in the war in Yemen. They would have loved to have more people join their protests.
A fair point about the UK government
Nonetheless, I’d say TOTAL silence on all these horrors followed by screeds of outrage about Gaza is, indeed, quite strongly indicative of anti-Semitism
There’s a couple of suspects on here. Worse, I have some acquaintances of whom this is true. I now realise they are anti-Semitic - and previously odd behaviour suddenly is explained. A pattern is revealed
It is a melancholy revelation
The odd thing is that they would object very strongly if accused. It is what I call passive (as opposed to active) anti-semitism. They don't objectively hate the Jews. But they are deeply unsympathetic on a number of levels and apply a special set of standards to Israel which they do not to any other nation and to Jews not to any other group.
Jeremy Corbyn is a classic passive Anti-Semite.
I think going on about anti-semitism is missing the poin, actually.
What unites the so-called pro-Palestine movement, is that they are all profoundly anti-Western. They hate capitalism, western values, the USA, etc., etc.
That what unites tankie lefties, and Islamist misognists.
And Israel is of the west. People vote there. They consume. They dance and rave. They have a free press.
That's why these people are out on the streets. That's why no-one is demonstrating about the Uyghurs or the various genocides being committed across the world by vicious authoritarian regimes. Those regimes are anti-Western.
So, yes, there are certainly anti-semites mixed in. But that is not the unifying principle. They just loathe the society they find themselves living in.
I think's that largely correct. If, by some bizarre quirk of history, Israel was a Christian state but still occupied Palestine, still received massive support from America and the religious Right in particular, had still been buddies with apartheid South Africa etc. etc. then I imagine pretty much the same people would still dislike it. In contrast, had a Jewish Israel modelled itself on, say, Castro's Cuba then its supporters from the western Right would be much more thin on the ground I suspect.
Which also explains the Left's journey towards anti-semitism. Because Israel initially was the little guy, whilst their kibbutzes were literally modelled on socialist/communal living. They were great and a worthy cause.
But then they only went and stopped being the victim, turned the table on their bullies, and left the ranks of the powerless and became one of the powerful and hence the Left loathes them.
When Israel was founded, there was a debate in the Soviet Central Committee about which side to support.
The Jews were seen as quite lefty, lots of ethnic Russians etc
The Arabs (this before oil became a thing) were all into Arab National Socialism (Bathtubism)
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Nothing will work in the short term. You really think Israel flattening Gaza and killing thousands of civilians will make them any safer as a country? All it makes is the next generation of terrorists. Longer term there is a complex set of agreements, compromises and hard decisions to be made to bring peace and the current Hamas leadership are never going to agree to that. They are a roadblock to peace and need to be removed. I would say the same about Netenyahu and the ultra right wing parties in Israel but I would settle for just putting them in jail for a very long time as that is the civilised thing to do.
I'm not convinced of the argument that the current response will be creating 'the next generation of terrorists'. Removing the terrorist organisation root and branch AND preventing anything like it from emerging could well lead to the sort of situation, following perhaps a decade of peaceful coexistence, where a 1995 peace-talks opportunity could be accepted, rather than rejected by the next generation of Palestinians.
I admit that 'preventing anything like it from emerging' is doing a lot of heavy lifting, and will require forgiveness and goodwill from Israel. I think the latter is just possible, but it is only possible after Hamas has been removed entirely.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Nothing will work in the short term. You really think Israel flattening Gaza and killing thousands of civilians will make them any safer as a country? All it makes is the next generation of terrorists. Longer term there is a complex set of agreements, compromises and hard decisions to be made to bring peace and the current Hamas leadership are never going to agree to that. They are a roadblock to peace and need to be removed. I would say the same about Netenyahu and the ultra right wing parties in Israel but I would settle for just putting them in jail for a very long time as that is the civilised thing to do.
Depends. There was some (BBC?) report which described what support Hamas had in Gaza. The reporter said that immediately after the attacks on 7th Oct there was huge support, but that waned pretty quickly once the retaliation began.
Perhaps, even with Hamas' stated objectives and supposed disregard for their civilian population, the asymmetry of the response will deter them trying it again.
Many people say that Hamas miscalculated the original scope of October 7th especially as many locals apparently picked up their weapons to join in (Wife: that lawn won't mow itself; Husband: just popping out to murder some Jews I'll have it done by the evening). I wouldn't be surprised if they calculated on international outrage halting Israel in its tracks, everyone dusting themselves down, and the world moving on.
That hasn't happened.
And if they are hurting now and severely depleted then a ceasefire would be the worst possible course of action.
Maybe we should take the Israelis at their word when they say they want to destroy Hamas and it wasn't just the empty rhetoric of a wounded animal.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
I don't know about anyone else but when I talk about Palestinian casualties being disproportionately high it's not based on some noddy view that International Law says it has to be 1:1 or not more than X:1 or anything like that. I'm just using the word 'disproportionate' in its plain and simple (non legal) meaning. Shockingly high.
Also I find the whole idea that being 'at war' is a justifier of acts that would be criminal otherwise to be rather flimsy. Eg look at Russia/Ukraine. There's a 'war' where the triggering event was Vladimir Putin unleashing a completely unprovoked invasion on another country. I don't see a clear and massive distinction between that and mass murder, whatever the law says.
But, war does indeed. justify (some) acts that would otherwise be treated as criminal. That's been the case ever since people invented rules of war.
Putin orders that invasion. What (morally) distinguishes it from mass murder?
Morally, one can argue that any act of military aggression is mass murder, but the fact that the actor in this case is a State, means that it will not be treated legally as mass murder.
Although people were convicted of crimes against peace at Nuremburg, that has never been truly established as a ground for prosecution. In practice, war crimes prosecutions focus on ius in bello, rather than ius ad bellum, that is, the conduct of wars, rather than the right to wage war.
Russia's President, generals, and soldiers, can certainly be accused of mass murder, torture, pillage, maltreatment of civilians, during the course of waging this war.
That's the problem. We look at how (say) Russia is conducting itself in Ukraine, where various 'rules' are meant to be followed and if not we're in 'war crime' territory, but for me starting the war itself is a crime. It's a crime because there was no justification for it. It's the biggest crime of all since it leads to all the rest. So, to clarify what I mean, even if Russia were to commit no 'war crimes' in their prosecution of the war, nevertheless Putin (plus collaborators) is surely guilty of a prosecutable crime (starting a war), assuming he could be brought to a relevant court and charged, and if not why not?
Putin, Lavrov, and friends in the Russian government, are all guilty of waging an unjust war. The generals ordering attacks on primarily civilian targets are guilty of war crimes too. The individual soldiers murdering civilians and surrenderers, raping women, and kidnapping children, are also guilty of their own war crimes.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Nothing will work in the short term. You really think Israel flattening Gaza and killing thousands of civilians will make them any safer as a country? All it makes is the next generation of terrorists. Longer term there is a complex set of agreements, compromises and hard decisions to be made to bring peace and the current Hamas leadership are never going to agree to that. They are a roadblock to peace and need to be removed. I would say the same about Netenyahu and the ultra right wing parties in Israel but I would settle for just putting them in jail for a very long time as that is the civilised thing to do.
Actually, killing as many Hamas operatives *may* work in the short term; and a heck of a lot more effectively that your policy of assassination of leadership. Especially if Hamas are intelligent and have a structure where decapitation of some leadership won't affect their ability to prosecute their cause.
The Israelis are in a no-win situation, aren't they?
On topic, I obviously agree that in a free country that people have a right protest.
However, we should also take account of the fact that the protests have a burden on society such as policing costs and the impact on people who live and work in Central London.
Bearing in mind, that there have already been protests on previous weekends, and that there will likely be protests on future weekends too, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the authorities to say 'no' to this one particular weekend.
It's worth adding that these protests are pretty futile regardless as the UK government has no control over Israel's actions.
Its a very slippery slope when we start banning protest, whether the police have resource issues or not on that weekend.
I want people who desire peace in the middle east to be able to make their opinions known. If what they are saying / doing isn't a crime then let them get on with it. But the ones who cross the legal line need to be nicked. I know that the Tories have broken the justice system so nothing will actually be done. But the point needs to be made.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
You haven't once criticised the Netanyahu administration in this exchange - just made untrue and unfounded accusations of war crimes, and backed them up poorly.
I agree that you are certainly not a "classical" ant-Semite. But, you do seem very poor at spotting it in others, even when it's pointed out that the "others" aren't denying it. It's reasonable to wonder why.
As to your suggestion of assassination as policy: I agree. But, as others have pointed out, Israel has a long track record of doing such things (indeed, is continuing to do so in Gaza where practical), so if it's not being done at present then it's probably for a very good reason (presumably, the US has refused permission). Also, it doesn't really solve the actual problem, which is the Qataris/Iranians funnelling money and weaponry to whoever will take it on the ground.
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.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
Will it be consistently applied? I can march through Bradford chanting "Deport all Muslim Men before they rape more of our pure white girls" as long as I don't do it near a Mosque or madrasah? The police will leave me be, or indeed steward me safely from counter-protests?
I suspect you'd be in a spot of bother if you did that. Same as you would be if you went to Golders Green High St and chanted something equally vile about jewish people.
But my point is just that context always matters and part of the context is the 'where' as well as the 'what'. Because the 'where' speaks to the 'why' - Intent, which is key in these things.
So if you call black people derogatory epithets it's fine as long as there are no black people present? Is that it?
No, 'this' is (still) it - context is important when assessing whether (eg) a 'stirring up racial hatred' public order offence is being committed, and part of the context is where and in what circumstances it has taken place.
Makes sense when you think about it.
Only if you think that it is not possible to stir up racial hatred when there is no member of the "target" race present.
Which is not logical. Racial hatred can be stirred amongst the "non target" race at any time.
Context is important (to whether it's an offence) and the 'where' is relevant to context. This much is true (and indeed was my point). But from this it doesn't follow that it's 'impossible' to commit the offence where there is nobody present of the target race. It certainly is possible.
You started off saying it was reasonable for the police not to prosecute an offence of stirring racial hatred because the offence did not occur near the target race.
Now you are saying that it is possible to commit the offence of stirring racial hatred where the target race is not present.
I think what you have proved to yourself is that the presence of the target race is irrelevant to the offence and it remains an offence whoever is present. And likewise therefore you have shown to yourself that your position that it is reasonable for the police not to prosecute the offence is wrong.
Your welcome.
No. The point remains as it was and as true as it was. That context is relevant and this includes location.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Nothing will work in the short term. You really think Israel flattening Gaza and killing thousands of civilians will make them any safer as a country? All it makes is the next generation of terrorists. Longer term there is a complex set of agreements, compromises and hard decisions to be made to bring peace and the current Hamas leadership are never going to agree to that. They are a roadblock to peace and need to be removed. I would say the same about Netenyahu and the ultra right wing parties in Israel but I would settle for just putting them in jail for a very long time as that is the civilised thing to do.
From what I have been reading there is going to be a sizeable majority of Israelis who will be happy to lock Bibi up for ever once this is over. He was just about clinging on to power by doing outrageous deals with outrageous people. Then this happened, and he is done.
Agreed; totally done. His main USP in recent years was that he alone could be trusted to keep ordinary Israelis safe from terror. That is now totally off the table forever.
The big question is how much splash damage his party takes, and whether they meaningfully exist as a movement without him these days anyway.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
I don't know about anyone else but when I talk about Palestinian casualties being disproportionately high it's not based on some noddy view that International Law says it has to be 1:1 or not more than X:1 or anything like that. I'm just using the word 'disproportionate' in its plain and simple (non legal) meaning. Shockingly high.
Also I find the whole idea that being 'at war' is a justifier of acts that would be criminal otherwise to be rather flimsy. Eg look at Russia/Ukraine. There's a 'war' where the triggering event was Vladimir Putin unleashing a completely unprovoked invasion on another country. I don't see a clear and massive distinction between that and mass murder, whatever the law says.
Having a legitimate casus belli on which to launch a war has been a key principle of international relations (and ethics, for that matter) since at least St Augustine, and probably earlier. 'Waging aggressive war' was one of the charges levelled at Nuremburg.
Put simply, Putin's war would still be illegal, even if its actions were carried out in accordance with other international law (which is very much not the case).
States have to reserve the right to violence to some extent because there is no higher authority who can act on their behalf.
Ah ok. Maybe he'll get charged one day then. For it to be meaningful it shouldn't be only if you lose.
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.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
Will it be consistently applied? I can march through Bradford chanting "Deport all Muslim Men before they rape more of our pure white girls" as long as I don't do it near a Mosque or madrasah? The police will leave me be, or indeed steward me safely from counter-protests?
I suspect you'd be in a spot of bother if you did that. Same as you would be if you went to Golders Green High St and chanted something equally vile about jewish people.
But my point is just that context always matters and part of the context is the 'where' as well as the 'what'. Because the 'where' speaks to the 'why' - Intent, which is key in these things.
So if you call black people derogatory epithets it's fine as long as there are no black people present? Is that it?
No, 'this' is (still) it - context is important when assessing whether (eg) a 'stirring up racial hatred' public order offence is being committed, and part of the context is where and in what circumstances it has taken place.
Makes sense when you think about it.
Only if you think that it is not possible to stir up racial hatred when there is no member of the "target" race present.
Which is not logical. Racial hatred can be stirred amongst the "non target" race at any time.
Context is important (to whether it's an offence) and the 'where' is relevant to context. This much is true (and indeed was my point). But from this it doesn't follow that it's 'impossible' to commit the offence where there is nobody present of the target race. It certainly is possible.
You started off saying it was reasonable for the police not to prosecute an offence of stirring racial hatred because the offence did not occur near the target race.
Now you are saying that it is possible to commit the offence of stirring racial hatred where the target race is not present.
I think what you have proved to yourself is that the presence of the target race is irrelevant to the offence and it remains an offence whoever is present. And likewise therefore you have shown to yourself that your position that it is reasonable for the police not to prosecute the offence is wrong.
Your welcome.
No. The point remains as it was and as true as it was. That context is relevant and this includes location.
You're all over the place. I think we can leave it there.
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.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
Will it be consistently applied? I can march through Bradford chanting "Deport all Muslim Men before they rape more of our pure white girls" as long as I don't do it near a Mosque or madrasah? The police will leave me be, or indeed steward me safely from counter-protests?
I suspect you'd be in a spot of bother if you did that. Same as you would be if you went to Golders Green High St and chanted something equally vile about jewish people.
But my point is just that context always matters and part of the context is the 'where' as well as the 'what'. Because the 'where' speaks to the 'why' - Intent, which is key in these things.
So if you call black people derogatory epithets it's fine as long as there are no black people present? Is that it?
No, 'this' is (still) it - context is important when assessing whether (eg) a 'stirring up racial hatred' public order offence is being committed, and part of the context is where and in what circumstances it has taken place.
Makes sense when you think about it.
Only if you think that it is not possible to stir up racial hatred when there is no member of the "target" race present.
Which is not logical. Racial hatred can be stirred amongst the "non target" race at any time.
Context is important (to whether it's an offence) and the 'where' is relevant to context. This much is true (and indeed was my point). But from this it doesn't follow that it's 'impossible' to commit the offence where there is nobody present of the target race. It certainly is possible.
You started off saying it was reasonable for the police not to prosecute an offence of stirring racial hatred because the offence did not occur near the target race.
Now you are saying that it is possible to commit the offence of stirring racial hatred where the target race is not present.
I think what you have proved to yourself is that the presence of the target race is irrelevant to the offence and it remains an offence whoever is present. And likewise therefore you have shown to yourself that your position that it is reasonable for the police not to prosecute the offence is wrong.
Your welcome.
No. The point remains as it was and as true as it was. That context is relevant and this includes location.
You're all over the place. I think we can leave it there.
Yes let's. But as ever I thank you for the 'make me repeat the same point three times' service. Keeps my fingers warm.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Nothing will work in the short term. You really think Israel flattening Gaza and killing thousands of civilians will make them any safer as a country? All it makes is the next generation of terrorists. Longer term there is a complex set of agreements, compromises and hard decisions to be made to bring peace and the current Hamas leadership are never going to agree to that. They are a roadblock to peace and need to be removed. I would say the same about Netenyahu and the ultra right wing parties in Israel but I would settle for just putting them in jail for a very long time as that is the civilised thing to do.
Actually, killing as many Hamas operatives *may* work in the short term; and a heck of a lot more effectively that your policy of assassination of leadership. Especially if Hamas are intelligent and have a structure where decapitation of some leadership won't affect their ability to prosecute their cause.
The Israelis are in a no-win situation, aren't they?
Could be a developing story here - the inquiry has been informed by the Post Office that 363,000 emails may have potentially gone missing - and these are emails from post-2012 - ie as the Post Office went into cover-up mode. The data seems to have been lost in the shift..."
We're possibly witnessing the largest criminal conspiracy in UK history.
The Post Office's attitude remains scandalous. It is still trying to thwart the Inquiry.
The govt attitude to it seems passive at best too.
I doubt anyone will ever be held to account for this either. It is a disgrace that the victims still have no redress and the Post Office just carries on like this.
It's not fit for purpose but then neither are our politicians. How many MPs would you trust? They are all pretty much as slippery as a bar of soap. There was a time when the words Member of Parliament meant something.....
Agree with you on this. It is the ultimate masturbatory exercise delivering high octane virtue signalling on both sides and in which everything that is said is pointless because the UK has no meaningful role to play. It is an important issue in the world but not a useful thing to talk about on here, unless you get off on boring sanctimony.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Nothing will work in the short term. You really think Israel flattening Gaza and killing thousands of civilians will make them any safer as a country? All it makes is the next generation of terrorists. Longer term there is a complex set of agreements, compromises and hard decisions to be made to bring peace and the current Hamas leadership are never going to agree to that. They are a roadblock to peace and need to be removed. I would say the same about Netenyahu and the ultra right wing parties in Israel but I would settle for just putting them in jail for a very long time as that is the civilised thing to do.
From what I have been reading there is going to be a sizeable majority of Israelis who will be happy to lock Bibi up for ever once this is over. He was just about clinging on to power by doing outrageous deals with outrageous people. Then this happened, and he is done.
Benjamin Netanyahu had been Israel's prime minister for most of the two decades preceding the war, and was criticized for having championed a policy of empowering Hamas in Gaza.[78][79][80][81][82] He has been accused of doing this to sabotage a two-state solution by confining the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority to the West Bank and weakening it, and to demonstrate to the Israeli public and western governments that Israel has no partner for peace.[83] This criticism was leveled by several Israeli officials, including former prime minister Ehud Barak, and former head of Shin Bet security services Yuval Diskin.[83] Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority were also critical of Israel under Netanyahu allowing suitcases of Qatari money to be given to Hamas,[83] in exchange for maintaining the ceasefire.[78] Moreover, Israel allowed in recent years up to 18,000 Palestinian laborers from Gaza to work in Israel as an incentive to maintain relative calm.[84][85] A Times of Israel op-ed argued after the Hamas attack that Netanyahu's policy to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset had "blown up in our faces".[78]
Agree with you on this. It is the ultimate masturbatory exercise delivering high octane virtue signalling on both sides and in which everything that is said is pointless because the UK has no meaningful role to play. It is an important issue in the world but not a useful thing to talk about on here, unless you get off on boring sanctimony.
And yet thousands of people turned up to protest about it at Edinburgh Waverley station of all places.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
You haven't once criticised the Netanyahu administration in this exchange - just made untrue and unfounded accusations of war crimes, and backed them up poorly.
I agree that you are certainly not a "classical" ant-Semite. But, you do seem very poor at spotting it in others, even when it's pointed out that the "others" aren't denying it. It's reasonable to wonder why.
As to your suggestion of assassination as policy: I agree. But, as others have pointed out, Israel has a long track record of doing such things (indeed, is continuing to do so in Gaza where practical), so if it's not being done at present then it's probably for a very good reason (presumably, the US has refused permission). Also, it doesn't really solve the actual problem, which is the Qataris/Iranians funnelling money and weaponry to whoever will take it on the ground.
Getting desperate now. In the first comment I made on this thread today I said that one reason I would not go on any of the 'peace' marches in London was because there are too many anti-semites involved. So on that point you are wrong.
And I have not made untrue accusations of war crimes, I have simply pointed out, in reply to Cyclefree, that those accusations are being made by a lot of reputable, neutral international organisations. It is you who have gone off the deep end and decided that such organisations are anti-semitic and, by association, so am I.
You see unlike you I actually pay attention to what is said on here and by whom. It must be strange living in your head where the whole world is anti-semetic, apparently including a lot of Jews who are equally critical of Israeli actions.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
Trump won't be off to jail for a while.
The judge in the New York trial is being very careful to ignore Trump's rants and comments to ensure Trump hasn't got the get out appeal reason of the Judge being biased when the verdict is delivered.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
Yamamoto was at a time of war. I doubt even he would have said he was not fair game. bin Laden was the self-acknowledged leader of a group, who killed thousands of US citizens. A lot of the Hamas 'leaders' and 'operatives' will be much greyer. Also, the Israeli assassinations occurred over a period of years.
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
Nothing will work in the short term. You really think Israel flattening Gaza and killing thousands of civilians will make them any safer as a country? All it makes is the next generation of terrorists. Longer term there is a complex set of agreements, compromises and hard decisions to be made to bring peace and the current Hamas leadership are never going to agree to that. They are a roadblock to peace and need to be removed. I would say the same about Netenyahu and the ultra right wing parties in Israel but I would settle for just putting them in jail for a very long time as that is the civilised thing to do.
Actually, killing as many Hamas operatives *may* work in the short term; and a heck of a lot more effectively that your policy of assassination of leadership. Especially if Hamas are intelligent and have a structure where decapitation of some leadership won't affect their ability to prosecute their cause.
The Israelis are in a no-win situation, aren't they?
Perhaps. But even if they can't win they can try to avoid losing.
It's a shame the protestors who are so irate over Israel (rightly, in many cases) were not on the streets going to the Russian Embassy over the Ukraine War. Or, perhaps in an even better cause, to protest the Russian attempts to blockade Ukraine food exports.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
If it were a straightforward alternative, sure.
But it isn't.
For a start, they've already targeted and killed those leaders they can in Gaza. I think they've also said, explicitly, that they may do the same for those in third countries (though that of course is amore uncertain, and longer term prospect, which carries its own separate complications, and risks of escalation).
And even if you kill off all the leaders, if no settlement is arrived at, there's likely to be a new set along fairly soon.
(There's a more general point, that doesn't necessarily apply in this case - if you kill all the leaders, who do you negotiate peace with ?)
Quick check. The laws introduced by the present Government banning laughing gas go into effect today. Some people have a habit of inhaling it deliberately to get high and induce inchoate behaviour. This disturbs the peace, causes concern to the spectators, and causes litter as the distinct containers are strewn along the ground. But the users may not be addicted and may not do the egregious crimes such as assaults or murder. The new laws impose prison sentences on both users and suppliers, with the latter in double figures
Questions ========= 1: Was the government morally right to do this? 2: Given the present difficulty of imprisoning people in the UK, was the Government logistically right to do this? 3: Given existing political pressures, was the Government politically right to do this?
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
You haven't once criticised the Netanyahu administration in this exchange - just made untrue and unfounded accusations of war crimes, and backed them up poorly.
I agree that you are certainly not a "classical" ant-Semite. But, you do seem very poor at spotting it in others, even when it's pointed out that the "others" aren't denying it. It's reasonable to wonder why.
As to your suggestion of assassination as policy: I agree. But, as others have pointed out, Israel has a long track record of doing such things (indeed, is continuing to do so in Gaza where practical), so if it's not being done at present then it's probably for a very good reason (presumably, the US has refused permission). Also, it doesn't really solve the actual problem, which is the Qataris/Iranians funnelling money and weaponry to whoever will take it on the ground.
Getting desperate now. In the first comment I made on this thread today I said that one reason I would not go on any of the 'peace' marches in London was because there are too many anti-semites involved. So on that point you are wrong.
And I have not made untrue accusations of war crimes, I have simply pointed out, in reply to Cyclefree, that those accusations are being made by a lot of reputable, neutral international organisations. It is you who have gone off the deep end and decided that such organisations are anti-semitic and, by association, so am I.
You see unlike you I actually pay attention to what is said on here and by whom. It must be strange living in your head where the whole world is anti-semetic, apparently including a lot of Jews who are equally critical of Israeli actions.
Then do me the same courtesy and actually read my posts as well. I quoted you an actual UN Secretary general admitting his organisation discriminates against Jews. It's ridiculous for you to continue to claim it's neutral.
Also, surprisingly, the EC gave its backing to Georgia. Despite rather than because of its current government's over-friendliness to Russia. I assume the calculus is this this will push Georgia further down the EU path than a rejection now, which might have led its leaders to lose interest completely and make its bed with Putin.
Quick check. The laws introduced by the present Government banning laughing gas go into effect today. Some people have a habit of inhaling it deliberately to get high and induce inchoate behaviour. This disturbs the peace, causes concern to the spectators, and causes litter as the distinct containers are strewn along the ground. But the users may not be addicted and may not do the egregious crimes such as assaults or murder. The new laws impose prison sentences on both users and suppliers, with the latter in double figures
Questions ========= 1: Was the government morally right to do this? 2: Given the present difficulty of imprisoning people in the UK, was the Government logistically right to do this? 3: Given existing political pressures, was the Government politically right to do this?
Quick check. The laws introduced by the present Government banning laughing gas go into effect today. Some people have a habit of inhaling it deliberately to get high and induce inchoate behaviour. This disturbs the peace, causes concern to the spectators, and causes litter as the distinct containers are strewn along the ground. But the users may not be addicted and may not do the egregious crimes such as assaults or murder. The new laws impose prison sentences on both users and suppliers, with the latter in double figures
Questions ========= 1: Was the government morally right to do this? 2: Given the present difficulty of imprisoning people in the UK, was the Government logistically right to do this? 3: Given existing political pressures, was the Government politically right to do this?
It makes no sense. The only measure I can think of that criminalises, to the point of internment, people for doing something that causes litter. There is no evidence that laughing gas does any damage other than making a mess if people don't use bins. On that logic you might as well ban crisps or sweets, and you should certainly ban all dogs not just XL Bullies. I'd rather step on a nitrous oxide bottle than a dog shit.
It's a shame the protestors who are so irate over Israel (rightly, in many cases) were not on the streets going to the Russian Embassy over the Ukraine War. Or, perhaps in an even better cause, to protest the Russian attempts to blockade Ukraine food exports.
Well, the Russians are totally unreasonable and were never going to agree to stop shooting, so actually they should've been putting pressure on Ukraine for a unilateral one-sided ceasefire.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
Heavy Ukraine weaponry is moving over to the left bank of the Dnipro. If you want a "surprise" scenerio, then all parties having worked together to secretly deliver F-16s to Ukraine to support a winter offensive towards Crimea would be a good one.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
If it were a straightforward alternative, sure.
But it isn't.
For a start, they've already targeted and killed those leaders they can in Gaza. I think they've also said, explicitly, that they may do the same for those in third countries (though that of course is amore uncertain, and longer term prospect, which carries its own separate complications, and risks of escalation).
And even if you kill off all the leaders, if no settlement is arrived at, there's likely to be a new set along fairly soon.
(There's a more general point, that doesn't necessarily apply in this case - if you kill all the leaders, who do you negotiate peace with ?)
New leaders who are more willing to see sense when they realise they will be next.
Must say that I approve of Big Client IT. They need me to use SAP. But refuse to install it on an external machine. So after long wait they build and ship a laptop.
I had been warned they would source a laptop in Spain and indeed they have, complete with Spanish keyboard. Happily it will be docked so that isn't an issue. A bigger issue is that system language is locked in Spanish and needs admin to change. Also my account won't actually log me into any server, nor have they actually installed SAP on it. And happily it charges on USB-C as I don't have an adaptor for the EU plug...
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
Aliens
Interesting notion. If Biden announces from the Oval Office "we now have 100% proof of intelligent life visiting us from outside our solar system", would Americans vote for Biden to have a dialogue with them - or for Trump to nuke 'em?
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
"... have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, "
Again, I really don't think that assassinations are in any way a valid way out of this mess for Israel. It will take too much time, and damage relations with other countries. And when Russia does it here (Salisbury, Litvinenko), we rightly complain (although the messy way it did both attacks hardly helped that).
Yes we complained. But I don't equate people like Sergei Skripal and Alexander Litvinenko with those directing terrorist actions against innocent civilians. I am not saying countries should simply go round knocking off anyone they disagree with. But at the point of war, or the sort of threat Israel is facing, I don't see there is anything wrong with targetting he specific leadership, even if they are in a third country.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
If it were a straightforward alternative, sure.
But it isn't.
For a start, they've already targeted and killed those leaders they can in Gaza. I think they've also said, explicitly, that they may do the same for those in third countries (though that of course is amore uncertain, and longer term prospect, which carries its own separate complications, and risks of escalation).
And even if you kill off all the leaders, if no settlement is arrived at, there's likely to be a new set along fairly soon.
(There's a more general point, that doesn't necessarily apply in this case - if you kill all the leaders, who do you negotiate peace with ?)
New leaders who are more willing to see sense when they realise they will be next.
That's if they're logical. Extremists might not be logical - especially if it is a religious cause.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
You haven't once criticised the Netanyahu administration in this exchange - just made untrue and unfounded accusations of war crimes, and backed them up poorly.
I agree that you are certainly not a "classical" ant-Semite. But, you do seem very poor at spotting it in others, even when it's pointed out that the "others" aren't denying it. It's reasonable to wonder why.
As to your suggestion of assassination as policy: I agree. But, as others have pointed out, Israel has a long track record of doing such things (indeed, is continuing to do so in Gaza where practical), so if it's not being done at present then it's probably for a very good reason (presumably, the US has refused permission). Also, it doesn't really solve the actual problem, which is the Qataris/Iranians funnelling money and weaponry to whoever will take it on the ground.
Getting desperate now. In the first comment I made on this thread today I said that one reason I would not go on any of the 'peace' marches in London was because there are too many anti-semites involved. So on that point you are wrong.
And I have not made untrue accusations of war crimes, I have simply pointed out, in reply to Cyclefree, that those accusations are being made by a lot of reputable, neutral international organisations. It is you who have gone off the deep end and decided that such organisations are anti-semitic and, by association, so am I.
You see unlike you I actually pay attention to what is said on here and by whom. It must be strange living in your head where the whole world is anti-semetic, apparently including a lot of Jews who are equally critical of Israeli actions.
Then do me the same courtesy and actually read my posts as well. I quoted you an actual UN Secretary general admitting his organisation discriminates against Jews. It's ridiculous for you to continue to claim it's neutral.
I would not give credit to your partial quoting. In the same speech by Ban Ki-moon he said
""Israel needs to understand the reality that a democratic state which is run by the rule of the law, which continues to militarily occupy the Palestinian people, will still generate criticism and calls to hold her accountable."
Quick check. The laws introduced by the present Government banning laughing gas go into effect today. Some people have a habit of inhaling it deliberately to get high and induce inchoate behaviour. This disturbs the peace, causes concern to the spectators, and causes litter as the distinct containers are strewn along the ground. But the users may not be addicted and may not do the egregious crimes such as assaults or murder. The new laws impose prison sentences on both users and suppliers, with the latter in double figures
Questions ========= 1: Was the government morally right to do this? 2: Given the present difficulty of imprisoning people in the UK, was the Government logistically right to do this? 3: Given existing political pressures, was the Government politically right to do this?
It seems disproportionate to any harm done. Perhaps a senior Conservative SpAd's niece had bad side-effects. Then again, as Professor Nutt discovered when sacked by David Blunkett, politicians have no uninterest in a rational drugs policy.
Must say that I approve of Big Client IT. They need me to use SAP. But refuse to install it on an external machine. So after long wait they build and ship a laptop.
I had been warned they would source a laptop in Spain and indeed they have, complete with Spanish keyboard. Happily it will be docked so that isn't an issue. A bigger issue is that system language is locked in Spanish and needs admin to change. Also my account won't actually log me into any server, nor have they actually installed SAP on it. And happily it charges on USB-C as I don't have an adaptor for the EU plug...
That sounds about right!
It should let you add a keyboard (as opposed to changing the system language) without admin, they won’t ship it with anything installed that someone intercepting it in transit could use, there’s probably a permanent VPN on the network, and a support tool such as PCAnywhere or TeamViewer that will let their guys dial in and finish the setup for you.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
Heavy Ukraine weaponry is moving over to the left bank of the Dnipro. If you want a "surprise" scenerio, then all parties having worked together to secretly deliver F-16s to Ukraine to support a winter offensive towards Crimea would be a good one.
I don't quite get what Russia is up to in allowing this, unless it's all a bit Admiral Akbar (though of course it should be noted that yes, it was a trap but the trap failed to close around its target).
Russian civil unrest leading to revolution is not out of the question though. It seems more likely to me that if there is a definitive outcome to the Ukraine War, it will be decided on the home front rather than the battlefield.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
Well, we're talking specifically about international law, and I was just responding to your fallacious appeal to authority. I apologise for encouraging your inability to construct proper logical arguments by failing to point out the fallacy and instead attacking the authority, but either way I am happy to specify that the UN are institutionally anti-semitic and should never be relied upon on matters pertaining to Israel.
I think the problem you have is that you vastly underestimate the level of anti-semitism in the world, in particular in large supranational organisations. i can't speak to why that is, but a easy (albeit somewhat superficial) starting point might be to point out just how many more Muslim/Arab states such organisations have to deal with, than Jewish ones.
Bollocks. And that is putting it politely.
You were picking and choosing certain parts of the UN behaviour that you disagree with and using that to justify ignoring them entirely. There are plenty of parts of the actions of the UK police that I disagree with but I don't use that to justify not obeying the law. Indeed it is you who is attacking the authority rather than dealing with the arguments.
Just like Cyclefree you seek to make every criticism of Israel an anti-semitic act. You use that to justify and defend any and all action by Israel up to and including war crimes and crimes against humanity. As such you are part of the problem not the solution just as much as Hamas or the extremists in the current Israeli Government.
You're not making any arguments. It's literally just an endless appeal to authorities, all of which I have demonstrated - often using their own words - have intrinsic biases against Jews.
Maybe just consider the possibility that you do too?
There you go again. Accusations of anti semitism. Yet I have been forthright in my condemnation of Hamas, have suggested that Israel should kill all their leaders sitting comfortably in third countries, have explicietly agreed that Israel has the right (and duty) to exist, have condemned the attacks on Jews elsewhere in the West and have never once conflated the extremist Israeli administration with Jews as a whole.
And yet, because I criticise the Neyenyahu administration your go-to accusation is that I am anti-semitic.
Sadly this just shows how extremist you are rather than reflecting on myself and others on here.
You haven't once criticised the Netanyahu administration in this exchange - just made untrue and unfounded accusations of war crimes, and backed them up poorly.
I agree that you are certainly not a "classical" ant-Semite. But, you do seem very poor at spotting it in others, even when it's pointed out that the "others" aren't denying it. It's reasonable to wonder why.
As to your suggestion of assassination as policy: I agree. But, as others have pointed out, Israel has a long track record of doing such things (indeed, is continuing to do so in Gaza where practical), so if it's not being done at present then it's probably for a very good reason (presumably, the US has refused permission). Also, it doesn't really solve the actual problem, which is the Qataris/Iranians funnelling money and weaponry to whoever will take it on the ground.
Getting desperate now. In the first comment I made on this thread today I said that one reason I would not go on any of the 'peace' marches in London was because there are too many anti-semites involved. So on that point you are wrong.
And I have not made untrue accusations of war crimes, I have simply pointed out, in reply to Cyclefree, that those accusations are being made by a lot of reputable, neutral international organisations. It is you who have gone off the deep end and decided that such organisations are anti-semitic and, by association, so am I.
You see unlike you I actually pay attention to what is said on here and by whom. It must be strange living in your head where the whole world is anti-semetic, apparently including a lot of Jews who are equally critical of Israeli actions.
Then do me the same courtesy and actually read my posts as well. I quoted you an actual UN Secretary general admitting his organisation discriminates against Jews. It's ridiculous for you to continue to claim it's neutral.
I would not give credit to your partial quoting. In the same speech by Ban Ki-moon he said
""Israel needs to understand the reality that a democratic state which is run by the rule of the law, which continues to militarily occupy the Palestinian people, will still generate criticism and calls to hold her accountable."
But I note you missed that bit out.
I missed it out because it isn't relevant to the point being made?
Must say that I approve of Big Client IT. They need me to use SAP. But refuse to install it on an external machine. So after long wait they build and ship a laptop.
I had been warned they would source a laptop in Spain and indeed they have, complete with Spanish keyboard. Happily it will be docked so that isn't an issue. A bigger issue is that system language is locked in Spanish and needs admin to change. Also my account won't actually log me into any server, nor have they actually installed SAP on it. And happily it charges on USB-C as I don't have an adaptor for the EU plug...
That sounds about right!
It should let you add a keyboard (as opposed to changing the system language) without admin, they won’t ship it with anything installed that someone intercepting it in transit could use, there’s probably a permanent VPN on the network, and a support tool such as PCAnywhere or TeamViewer that will let their guys dial in and finish the setup for you.
Foreign keyboards can cause hours of fun trying to log into server out-of-band management interfaces but can get their revenge by setting passwords with non-ascii characters.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
Heavy Ukraine weaponry is moving over to the left bank of the Dnipro. If you want a "surprise" scenerio, then all parties having worked together to secretly deliver F-16s to Ukraine to support a winter offensive towards Crimea would be a good one.
I don't quite get what Russia is up to in allowing this, unless it's all a bit Admiral Akbar (though of course it should be noted that yes, it was a trap but the trap failed to close around its target).
Russian civil unrest leading to revolution is not out of the question though. It seems more likely to me that if there is a definitive outcome to the Ukraine War, it will be decided on the home front rather than the battlefield.
Perhaps in hindsight, Western sanctions on oligarchs were a mistake by neutralising potential internal opposition to Putin's hegemony.
Must say that I approve of Big Client IT. They need me to use SAP. But refuse to install it on an external machine. So after long wait they build and ship a laptop.
I had been warned they would source a laptop in Spain and indeed they have, complete with Spanish keyboard. Happily it will be docked so that isn't an issue. A bigger issue is that system language is locked in Spanish and needs admin to change. Also my account won't actually log me into any server, nor have they actually installed SAP on it. And happily it charges on USB-C as I don't have an adaptor for the EU plug...
That sounds about right!
It should let you add a keyboard (as opposed to changing the system language) without admin, they won’t ship it with anything installed that someone intercepting it in transit could use, there’s probably a permanent VPN on the network, and a support tool such as PCAnywhere or TeamViewer that will let their guys dial in and finish the setup for you.
Foreign keyboards can cause hours of fun trying to log into server out-of-band management interfaces but can get their revenge by setting passwords with non-ascii characters.
Oh, and the on-screen keyboard can be really useful for the login page.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
Heavy Ukraine weaponry is moving over to the left bank of the Dnipro. If you want a "surprise" scenerio, then all parties having worked together to secretly deliver F-16s to Ukraine to support a winter offensive towards Crimea would be a good one.
I don't quite get what Russia is up to in allowing this, unless it's all a bit Admiral Akbar (though of course it should be noted that yes, it was a trap but the trap failed to close around its target).
Russian civil unrest leading to revolution is not out of the question though. It seems more likely to me that if there is a definitive outcome to the Ukraine War, it will be decided on the home front rather than the battlefield.
Princess Leia shouted to Luke "It's a trap!" TWICE in quick succession in The Empire Strikes Back (one film earlier than Akbar's utterance in Return of the Jedi).
Agree with you on this. It is the ultimate masturbatory exercise delivering high octane virtue signalling on both sides and in which everything that is said is pointless because the UK has no meaningful role to play. It is an important issue in the world but not a useful thing to talk about on here, unless you get off on boring sanctimony.
A more frivolous point is that it completely ruins PB. Just loads of virtue signallers from both sides arguing among themselves about exactly the same topic, using exactly the same arguments, day after dismal day.
Rampant Scottish subsampling and prolonged technical AV debates were stimulating and vigorous in comparison.
Must say that I approve of Big Client IT. They need me to use SAP. But refuse to install it on an external machine. So after long wait they build and ship a laptop.
I had been warned they would source a laptop in Spain and indeed they have, complete with Spanish keyboard. Happily it will be docked so that isn't an issue. A bigger issue is that system language is locked in Spanish and needs admin to change. Also my account won't actually log me into any server, nor have they actually installed SAP on it. And happily it charges on USB-C as I don't have an adaptor for the EU plug...
That sounds about right!
It should let you add a keyboard (as opposed to changing the system language) without admin, they won’t ship it with anything installed that someone intercepting it in transit could use, there’s probably a permanent VPN on the network, and a support tool such as PCAnywhere or TeamViewer that will let their guys dial in and finish the setup for you.
Yes I have emailed the IT guy to fix it. As can't raise a ticket. As can't actually long onto their portal. Otherwise all good - it tells me (in Spanish) that it has UK English as the Windows language and the system language, then I log onto office and again in Spanish it tells me it is using Windows language with is UK English.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
Heavy Ukraine weaponry is moving over to the left bank of the Dnipro. If you want a "surprise" scenerio, then all parties having worked together to secretly deliver F-16s to Ukraine to support a winter offensive towards Crimea would be a good one.
I don't quite get what Russia is up to in allowing this, unless it's all a bit Admiral Akbar (though of course it should be noted that yes, it was a trap but the trap failed to close around its target).
Russian civil unrest leading to revolution is not out of the question though. It seems more likely to me that if there is a definitive outcome to the Ukraine War, it will be decided on the home front rather than the battlefield.
IMV Russia want another win to sell to the population. They got Bakhmut, but that was not a big win, and it was massively costly. Adviika would give them another win, which they can hope they sell as less bloody. That salient has also been an annoyance to the Russians for years, as it allows artillery to attack Donetsk city and Makiivka.
Therefore Russia concentrate on 'winning' Adviika, and they're too stretched atm to defend strongly everywhere. My question is whether they're stretched because they're short of material, or because they're preparing a bigger offensive.
I was sure it would be done to death but judging from the comments, everyone is focused on the Middle East. Anyway, re last night's US results and what it might mean for 2024.
Obviously a very good night for the Democrats. If there was one fly in the ointment, it was that they were bigging up their chances of toppling Reeves in Mississippi but it didn't happen. Incumbent Governors are actually difficult to vote out unless they monumentally screw things up - Beshear after all only beat the terrible Bevan by 0.5% in 2019. Overall, though, very good for the Ds, not just in VA and KY but also OH and NJ.
What does it mean for 2024? Not a huge amount although plenty will disagree. Personally, I think - if Trump is the candidate - the Democrats going on just about abortion would be a mistake. One consequence that seems to be rippling through from the Roe v Wade decision is that state elections / contests are now being taken a lot more seriously. Conversely, it has been taken out of Presidential hands, The Democrats benefited from voter intensity but, in a Presidential election campaign where more low-energy voters come out, they need more than that. If they use yesterday to see the bad polling is wrong, it's a mistake.
And on the Donald, bizarrely enough he may be the other (unstated) winner from last night, at least on the GOP side. Last night extinguished any final thoughts Youngkin will throw his hat in the ring for the GOP 2024 nomination. Trump didn't campaign for Cameron in Kentucky (or indeed Youngkin) who was seen more as McConnell's protege part because of the latter but part because he thought (correctly) there was a good chance Cameron would not win. So he didn't lose any points there but he saw McConnell bloodied (which may put further pressure on McConnell to step down as the Senate Leader).
But DJT did campaign for Reeves so he can point to that. Most of all, he seems the most likely of all the GOP candidates to thread the needle on abortion and his message that it needs to be pragmatic on abortion rights will gain more traction in the party. Conversely, what happened is negative for those more associated with stricter abortion rights such as DeSantis.
Two letters this morning, same letter date, setting up a phone and a clinic appointment for the same time on the same date in 2 weeks time with the same consultant.
Clearly need to turn up at the hospital with a telephone.
Must say that I approve of Big Client IT. They need me to use SAP. But refuse to install it on an external machine. So after long wait they build and ship a laptop.
I had been warned they would source a laptop in Spain and indeed they have, complete with Spanish keyboard. Happily it will be docked so that isn't an issue. A bigger issue is that system language is locked in Spanish and needs admin to change. Also my account won't actually log me into any server, nor have they actually installed SAP on it. And happily it charges on USB-C as I don't have an adaptor for the EU plug...
That sounds about right!
It should let you add a keyboard (as opposed to changing the system language) without admin, they won’t ship it with anything installed that someone intercepting it in transit could use, there’s probably a permanent VPN on the network, and a support tool such as PCAnywhere or TeamViewer that will let their guys dial in and finish the setup for you.
Yes I have emailed the IT guy to fix it. As can't raise a ticket. As can't actually long onto their portal. Otherwise all good - it tells me (in Spanish) that it has UK English as the Windows language and the system language, then I log onto office and again in Spanish it tells me it is using Windows language with is UK English.
Ha ha, sounds like fun. Memories of being the support manager trying to deal with crap like this!
It usually finishes with one setting that should have been changed before it was shipped, but makes it a total nightmare to fix now. Static IP address fixed to the office network was a good one, when the standard user didn’t have access to the network settings, and you had no way of elevating their permissions to do so. The solution to that was to enable a local admin account with a unique password per device, which could be disabled once we’d successfully dialled into the machine.
Nothing to See Here The conviction of Sam Bankman-Fried is over, but little attention has been paid to the lawyers who helped build up FTX—and they want to keep it that way.
https://prospect.org/justice/2023-11-08-nothing-to-see-here-ftx/ ...the lawyers currently in charge of FTX convinced the bankruptcy judge that they could investigate any wrongdoing at FTX themselves. Which is interesting, since the law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, was a key legal adviser to FTX for more than a year before the bankruptcy...
...And there’s perhaps the most significant secret: Early on in the case, they quietly convinced the judge to give them sole discretion to legally shield from liability any people involved with FTX whom they chose to protect—and to seal those names too...
How can you ceasefire against this? Israel has no choice but to level Gaza until Hamas is purged
“Hamas official Osama Hamdan in an interiew with Al-Liwaa newspaper says if there was a way to turn back time, Hamas would carry out Oct 7th attack again. Said strategy was to prevent Israel from being a 'natural entity' in the region.”
A classic example of why Israel should adopt a policy of assassination. This bloke sits in Beirut taking part in directing Hamas attacks.
I don’t agree with you on most of the Whole Gaza Thing, but I completely agree on assassinating the Hamas leaders. They are genocidal c*nts. Drone the fuck out of them. Shoot them in the streets of Qatar and hang the consequences. Make THEM suffer personally and decapitate the jihadi leadership - it might spare lives on all sides
I am mystified why this doesn’t happen. America has a carrier group parked off Tel Aviv
"Drone the fuck out of them" ... that sounds extremely muscular. I can imagine that being said by a Big Cheese in a highly charged meeting.
I occasionally feel like I’m getting the fuck droned out of me on here. No names, no pack drill.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
Heavy Ukraine weaponry is moving over to the left bank of the Dnipro. If you want a "surprise" scenerio, then all parties having worked together to secretly deliver F-16s to Ukraine to support a winter offensive towards Crimea would be a good one.
I don't quite get what Russia is up to in allowing this, unless it's all a bit Admiral Akbar (though of course it should be noted that yes, it was a trap but the trap failed to close around its target).
Russian civil unrest leading to revolution is not out of the question though. It seems more likely to me that if there is a definitive outcome to the Ukraine War, it will be decided on the home front rather than the battlefield.
IMV Russia want another win to sell to the population. They got Bakhmut, but that was not a big win, and it was massively costly. Adviika would give them another win, which they can hope they sell as less bloody. That salient has also been an annoyance to the Russians for years, as it allows artillery to attack Donetsk city and Makiivka.
Therefore Russia concentrate on 'winning' Adviika, and they're too stretched atm to defend strongly everywhere. My question is whether they're stretched because they're short of material, or because they're preparing a bigger offensive.
That's all plausible but if Ukraine can build a solid bridgehead across the Dnipro (which is, of course, now much lower further north too, thanks to Russia blowing up the dam, which also washed away many mines), then that opens up a very clear alternative route to Tokmak, to the Black Sea and cutting off Crimea. Winning Adviika and losing Crimea doesn't seem like a good trade.
What takes this off the front page in the near future? What potential news event? Short of a real black swan I think there are a few options to mull over:
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout) - A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps - A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922. - A snap general election - Trump going to jail - A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy - A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting - Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
Heavy Ukraine weaponry is moving over to the left bank of the Dnipro. If you want a "surprise" scenerio, then all parties having worked together to secretly deliver F-16s to Ukraine to support a winter offensive towards Crimea would be a good one.
I don't quite get what Russia is up to in allowing this, unless it's all a bit Admiral Akbar (though of course it should be noted that yes, it was a trap but the trap failed to close around its target).
Russian civil unrest leading to revolution is not out of the question though. It seems more likely to me that if there is a definitive outcome to the Ukraine War, it will be decided on the home front rather than the battlefield.
IMV Russia want another win to sell to the population. They got Bakhmut, but that was not a big win, and it was massively costly. Adviika would give them another win, which they can hope they sell as less bloody. That salient has also been an annoyance to the Russians for years, as it allows artillery to attack Donetsk city and Makiivka.
Therefore Russia concentrate on 'winning' Adviika, and they're too stretched atm to defend strongly everywhere. My question is whether they're stretched because they're short of material, or because they're preparing a bigger offensive.
That's all plausible but if Ukraine can build a solid bridgehead across the Dnipro (which is, of course, now much lower further north too, thanks to Russia blowing up the dam, which also washed away many mines), then that opens up a very clear alternative route to Tokmak, to the Black Sea and cutting off Crimea. Winning Adviika and losing Crimea doesn't seem like a good trade.
It would actually be a much shorter route to cutting off Crimea.
I haven't read anything to indicate that the Russians are going to "win Adviika". It sounds more like another black hole they are pouring their scarce resources into.
Must say that I approve of Big Client IT. They need me to use SAP. But refuse to install it on an external machine. So after long wait they build and ship a laptop.
I had been warned they would source a laptop in Spain and indeed they have, complete with Spanish keyboard. Happily it will be docked so that isn't an issue. A bigger issue is that system language is locked in Spanish and needs admin to change. Also my account won't actually log me into any server, nor have they actually installed SAP on it. And happily it charges on USB-C as I don't have an adaptor for the EU plug...
That sounds about right!
It should let you add a keyboard (as opposed to changing the system language) without admin, they won’t ship it with anything installed that someone intercepting it in transit could use, there’s probably a permanent VPN on the network, and a support tool such as PCAnywhere or TeamViewer that will let their guys dial in and finish the setup for you.
Yes I have emailed the IT guy to fix it. As can't raise a ticket. As can't actually long onto their portal. Otherwise all good - it tells me (in Spanish) that it has UK English as the Windows language and the system language, then I log onto office and again in Spanish it tells me it is using Windows language with is UK English.
Ha ha, sounds like fun. Memories of being the support manager trying to deal with crap like this!
It usually finishes with one setting that should have been changed before it was shipped, but makes it a total nightmare to fix now. Static IP address fixed to the office network was a good one, when the standard user didn’t have access to the network settings, and you had no way of elevating their permissions to do so. The solution to that was to enable a local admin account with a unique password per device, which could be disabled once we’d successfully dialled into the machine.
Indeed. The IT tech's airpods were still paired to the machine when I went into Bluetooth settings to pair mouse and keyboard...!
Although assassinations have advantages over mass slaughter, they have this disadvantage for us, too: As American history reminds us, it is easier to assassinate leaders in open societies than closed societies (asuming both are run with basic competence).
Sadly, the murders of David Amess and Jo Cox show that your nation is also vulnerable.
Comments
But then they only went and stopped being the victim, turned the table on their bullies, and left the ranks of the powerless and became one of the powerful and hence the Left loathes them.
My exit from the Labour Party came as a result of the official "how not to be an anti-semite" booklet sent to all CLPs with Mandatory AS Training for members. So I sat there reading the Corbyn authored / signed "AS is wrong and we will not tolerate it" forward. And looked at newly released images of him marching on a pro-Palestine march directly behind overtly anti-semitic banners. Concluding "bugger this" at which point I left and emailed my resignation.
The US assassinated Yamamoto in WW2 and Bin Laden in 2011. Israel asassinated some of those who planned the Munich massace in 1972. No one seriously thinks these were unjustified acts even if they were, under some jurisdictions, unlawful.
Anyone arguing thhat the alternative, of killing thousands of conscripts and civilians in war (referring to a wider principle rather than just Gaza) seems to have a warped sense of right and wrong to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_al-Mabhouh
Caused one hell of a diplomatic incident at the time.
In all honesty I don’t care THAT much about Darfur OR Israel - or Yemen or Syria or the Uighurs. It bores me
That probably makes me an appalling human but at least I’m consistently appalling
> re-election of Gov. Andy Beshear in the otherwise Red State of Kentucky.
> regained control of Virginia House of Delegates and retained control of state Senate.
> passage of Ohio constitutional amendment establishing state right to abortion
On the other hand, in the Deep South in Deep Red state of Mississippi, tarnished Republican incumbent Gov. Tate Reeves managed to prevail over his Democratic challenger.
However, in this case, there's certainly a justifiable argument that the Hamas leadership are fair game, even in third countries, and that hosting an active terrorist regime is of itself a hostile act and so one that nullifies the usual protections. As you say, the considerations are more about subsequent political and diplomatic ramifications rather than legalities.
It’s recorded in the Yerevan Holocaust Museum. And I confess I felt internally exultant when I read it. YES. KILL THEM
(Incidentally the "service" euphenism has been around since the mid-90s. It's even a line of dialogue in The Thin Blue Line, if anybody remembers that
Assassinations will not magically fix Israel's problems; and may well make matters worse.
Basically: it won't work, particularly in the short term.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67357877
However, we should also take account of the fact that the protests have a burden on society such as policing costs and the impact on people who live and work in Central London.
Bearing in mind, that there have already been protests on previous weekends, and that there will likely be protests on future weekends too, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the authorities to say 'no' to this one particular weekend.
It's worth adding that these protests are pretty futile regardless as the UK government has no control over Israel's actions.
The Jews were seen as quite lefty, lots of ethnic Russians etc
The Arabs (this before oil became a thing) were all into Arab National Socialism (Bathtubism)
The CC went with the Arabs because… Jews.
I admit that 'preventing anything like it from emerging' is doing a lot of heavy lifting, and will require forgiveness and goodwill from Israel. I think the latter is just possible, but it is only possible after Hamas has been removed entirely.
Perhaps, even with Hamas' stated objectives and supposed disregard for their civilian population, the asymmetry of the response will deter them trying it again.
Many people say that Hamas miscalculated the original scope of October 7th especially as many locals apparently picked up their weapons to join in (Wife: that lawn won't mow itself; Husband: just popping out to murder some Jews I'll have it done by the evening). I wouldn't be surprised if they calculated on international outrage halting Israel in its tracks, everyone dusting themselves down, and the world moving on.
That hasn't happened.
And if they are hurting now and severely depleted then a ceasefire would be the worst possible course of action.
Maybe we should take the Israelis at their word when they say they want to destroy Hamas and it wasn't just the empty rhetoric of a wounded animal.
The generals ordering attacks on primarily civilian targets are guilty of war crimes too.
The individual soldiers murdering civilians and surrenderers, raping women, and kidnapping children, are also guilty of their own war crimes.
The Israelis are in a no-win situation, aren't they?
I want people who desire peace in the middle east to be able to make their opinions known. If what they are saying / doing isn't a crime then let them get on with it. But the ones who cross the legal line need to be nicked. I know that the Tories have broken the justice system so nothing will actually be done. But the point needs to be made.
I agree that you are certainly not a "classical" ant-Semite. But, you do seem very poor at spotting it in others, even when it's pointed out that the "others" aren't denying it. It's reasonable to wonder why.
As to your suggestion of assassination as policy: I agree. But, as others have pointed out, Israel has a long track record of doing such things (indeed, is continuing to do so in Gaza where practical), so if it's not being done at present then it's probably for a very good reason (presumably, the US has refused permission). Also, it doesn't really solve the actual problem, which is the Qataris/Iranians funnelling money and weaponry to whoever will take it on the ground.
The big question is how much splash damage his party takes, and whether they meaningfully exist as a movement without him these days anyway.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67354323
How many MPs would you trust? They are all pretty much as slippery as a bar of soap. There was a time when the words Member of Parliament
meant something.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel–Hamas_war
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
And I have not made untrue accusations of war crimes, I have simply pointed out, in reply to Cyclefree, that those accusations are being made by a lot of reputable, neutral international organisations. It is you who have gone off the deep end and decided that such organisations are anti-semitic and, by association, so am I.
You see unlike you I actually pay attention to what is said on here and by whom. It must be strange living in your head where the whole world is anti-semetic, apparently including a lot of Jews who are equally critical of Israeli actions.
- A financial crisis (US bonds have been very volatile, maybe a sudden stockmarket rout)
- A huge natural disaster - but it would have to be truly huge, and probably close to home. Floods in Somerset or a bad earthquake in Mexico wouldn't be enough. Campi Phlaegri erupting perhaps
- A Tory leadership bid with letters going into the 1922.
- A snap general election
- Trump going to jail
- A surprise death: Trump (again), Biden, Putin, Zelenskyy
- A horrific UK crime e.g. child abduction or mass shooting
- Major breakthrough for either side in the Ukraine war
Otherwise I think we're stuck with Israel-Hamas and its allied topics (pro-Palestine protests, Labour resignations, antisemitism) for a couple of weeks at least.
The judge in the New York trial is being very careful to ignore Trump's rants and comments to ensure Trump hasn't got the get out appeal reason of the Judge being biased when the verdict is delivered.
That is my honest answer
But it isn't.
For a start, they've already targeted and killed those leaders they can in Gaza. I think they've also said, explicitly, that they may do the same for those in third countries (though that of course is amore uncertain, and longer term prospect, which carries its own separate complications, and risks of escalation).
And even if you kill off all the leaders, if no settlement is arrived at, there's likely to be a new set along fairly soon.
(There's a more general point, that doesn't necessarily apply in this case - if you kill all the leaders, who do you negotiate peace with ?)
Questions
=========
1: Was the government morally right to do this?
2: Given the present difficulty of imprisoning people in the UK, was the Government logistically right to do this?
3: Given existing political pressures, was the Government politically right to do this?
Source
======
https://nitter.net/Conservatives/status/1722186587780366790#m
1. Victory & justice in our resistance against Russia
2. Witnessing Ukraine become a member of the European Union
Not many people understand why the second point is so important.
Let me explain 🧵
1/...
https://twitter.com/TheStanislawski/status/1722233139618349056
1) a ceasefire has to be two way
2) I haven’t encountered anyone who can find a problem with my peace plan, yet.
I had been warned they would source a laptop in Spain and indeed they have, complete with Spanish keyboard. Happily it will be docked so that isn't an issue. A bigger issue is that system language is locked in Spanish and needs admin to change. Also my account won't actually log me into any server, nor have they actually installed SAP on it. And happily it charges on USB-C as I don't have an adaptor for the EU plug...
""Israel needs to understand the reality that a democratic state which is run by the rule of the law, which continues to militarily occupy the Palestinian people, will still generate criticism and calls to hold her accountable."
But I note you missed that bit out.
It should let you add a keyboard (as opposed to changing the system language) without admin, they won’t ship it with anything installed that someone intercepting it in transit could use, there’s probably a permanent VPN on the network, and a support tool such as PCAnywhere or TeamViewer that will let their guys dial in and finish the setup for you.
Russian civil unrest leading to revolution is not out of the question though. It seems more likely to me that if there is a definitive outcome to the Ukraine War, it will be decided on the home front rather than the battlefield.
Rampant Scottish subsampling and prolonged technical AV debates were stimulating and vigorous in comparison.
Therefore Russia concentrate on 'winning' Adviika, and they're too stretched atm to defend strongly everywhere.
My question is whether they're stretched because they're short of material, or because they're preparing a bigger offensive.
Obviously a very good night for the Democrats. If there was one fly in the ointment, it was that they were bigging up their chances of toppling Reeves in Mississippi but it didn't happen. Incumbent Governors are actually difficult to vote out unless they monumentally screw things up - Beshear after all only beat the terrible Bevan by 0.5% in 2019. Overall, though, very good for the Ds, not just in VA and KY but also OH and NJ.
What does it mean for 2024? Not a huge amount although plenty will disagree. Personally, I think - if Trump is the candidate - the Democrats going on just about abortion would be a mistake. One consequence that seems to be rippling through from the Roe v Wade decision is that state elections / contests are now being taken a lot more seriously. Conversely, it has been taken out of Presidential hands, The Democrats benefited from voter intensity but, in a Presidential election campaign where more low-energy voters come out, they need more than that. If they use yesterday to see the bad polling is wrong, it's a mistake.
And on the Donald, bizarrely enough he may be the other (unstated) winner from last night, at least on the GOP side. Last night extinguished any final thoughts Youngkin will throw his hat in the ring for the GOP 2024 nomination. Trump didn't campaign for Cameron in Kentucky (or indeed Youngkin) who was seen more as McConnell's protege part because of the latter but part because he thought (correctly) there was a good chance Cameron would not win. So he didn't lose any points there but he saw McConnell bloodied (which may put further pressure on McConnell to step down as the Senate Leader).
But DJT did campaign for Reeves so he can point to that. Most of all, he seems the most likely of all the GOP candidates to thread the needle on abortion and his message that it needs to be pragmatic on abortion rights will gain more traction in the party. Conversely, what happened is negative for those more associated with stricter abortion rights such as DeSantis.
Even my hospital are now trying a bit two hard.
Two letters this morning, same letter date, setting up a phone and a clinic appointment for the same time on the same date in 2 weeks time
Clearly need to turn up at the hospital with a telephone.
It usually finishes with one setting that should have been changed before it was shipped, but makes it a total nightmare to fix now. Static IP address fixed to the office network was a good one, when the standard user didn’t have access to the network settings, and you had no way of elevating their permissions to do so. The solution to that was to enable a local admin account with a unique password per device, which could be disabled once we’d successfully dialled into the machine.
The conviction of Sam Bankman-Fried is over, but little attention has been paid to the lawyers who helped build up FTX—and they want to keep it that way.
https://prospect.org/justice/2023-11-08-nothing-to-see-here-ftx/
...the lawyers currently in charge of FTX convinced the bankruptcy judge that they could investigate any wrongdoing at FTX themselves. Which is interesting, since the law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, was a key legal adviser to FTX for more than a year before the bankruptcy...
...And there’s perhaps the most significant secret: Early on in the case, they quietly convinced the judge to give them sole discretion to legally shield from liability any people involved with FTX whom they chose to protect—and to seal those names too...
Very fine people. lawyers...
No names, no pack drill.
I haven't read anything to indicate that the Russians are going to "win Adviika". It sounds more like another black hole they are pouring their scarce resources into.
(OK, I'm joking -- mostly. But iatrogenesis is, almost certainly, responsible for more than 100,000 deaths a year.)
Sadly, the murders of David Amess and Jo Cox show that your nation is also vulnerable.