In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I don't really want to engage with antisemites (and especially after their "contributions" last night it is now abundantly clear that's what this poster is), but I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
You repeatedly mentioned Madagascar; and I'm intrigued as to why, given it was famously a Nazi plan designed to wipe out the Jews - without looking as if they were wiping them out.
Your one-state solution is bullshit, as it gives fuck-all guarantees that the Jews will not be wiped out. "Truth and reconciliation" is just a pathetic get-out clause for what you *know* will happen. Its like October 7th never happened in your eyes.
Given both of the above, I have no doubt you are not interested in the welfare of Jews.
I mentioned Madagascar once, maybe twice? Again, it doesn't change the point that many people involved with the creation of a Jewish state considered places other than Israel as somewhere to put that state, including some Jewish people.
So you think the inevitable consequence of ending the illegal siege of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the West Bank, investigating the crimes of Hamas and the Israeli state and holding any individuals account, the allowing of Palestinian civilians to go back to their homes and participate in a single secular society, with a state body politic and constitution aimed at secular multi-ethnic control is impossible because the Palestinian Arab population would automatically use that as an opportunity to do another Holocaust? And you also believe that if that is true, I am in favour of that?
I don't need you to sign off on my interest in the welfare of Jewish people - I've written here about looking into my own grandfather's family history of displacement across Russia and Eastern Europe, of talking to Jewish friends and family about these issues, of literally marching against anti-fascists with Jewish bloc. I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing, the obsession with Soros, the attacks on Ed Miliband, and the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. How "anti-wokeness" is just a recooking of Judaeo-Bolshevism and that, when you look at violence against Jewish people prior to October 7th, the vast majority of it was by right wingers who believed that Jewish people were the tools of the left. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I care about the welfare of Jewish people, comrades or otherwise, and that not being a Zionist does not hinder that.
Has the weaselly little shit said whether he's part of that body of judgment?
Leaving aside the "weaselly little shit" bit, it's slightly sad to see Gove reduced to this. I don't approve of him or his policies but I think he was better than the times he found himself in, and one of the problems with the present lobotomised Conservative Party is that they have no real place for him
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
BTW, what's your view on the tunnels underneath the hospital? Are you still a sceptic?
Israeli contractors built it according to Ehud Barak former Israel PM
“Decades ago, we were running the place so we … helped them to build these bunkers in order to enable more space for the operation of the hospital within the very limited size of this compound.”
Are you visiting those dodgy websites and following the extremist twitter accounts again.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Yet, the growth of capitalism has gone hand in hand with the growth in democracy. Whereas, those countries that are avowedly anti-capitalist are rarely democracies.
I mean, the places that claim to be democracies (like the US) do not address the needs of the average voter - indeed the literature makes clear that the issues that the rich care about get dealt with (in their favour) against the issues the poor want resolved. Capitalism tends towards monopoly, monopoly allows people to buy their political outcomes.
All societies have a tendency to monopoly. Hence Adam Smith.
Liberal mixed market social democracies have the lowest levels of barriers to participation in politics and the highest levels of distribution of power.
In the US, for example, community activist politics is a thriving space. Which creates some interesting effects at national level.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
LOL. " but if fascism is a scale, not a binary," is an odd thing to say, and a sign you're on rocky ground. And as I said in another post, some of the definitions fit Israel because they *are* a state under threat, as Oct 7th show. Whereas the fascist definition really refers to 'invented' threats, based on lies such as the Nazi 'stabbed in the back' mythos. The threats to Israel are all too real.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd. Yes, Hamas has the capability to attack Israel. But it doesn't have the capability to destroy Israel, even if it wanted to.
I literally gave you my preferred method of identifying fascisms, which provides a 14 point criteria. Eco even says that not all forms of fascism will tick every criteria, and some may have fewer individual criteria but some so intensely that they are more obviously fascistic. It's one of the reasons why defining fascism (like defining many things, such as democratic) is so difficult - people disagree when it starts and ends. One famous scholar on fascism, for example, in 2016 was not willing to call Trump a fascist but did so after January 6th because he thought that kind of anti-democratic action was enough to warrant that definition. It isn't only fascism after the genocide has happened. It doesn't have to come from the specific Fascisti region of Italy (that's a joke, btw). It is a mode, a model, of thought and politics that depends on the national politics and traditions of the individual country at that time.
"The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd."
That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about.
I've looked at your definition of fascism, and Israel simply doesn't meet it. And as you've shown, you have to twist facts - e.g. LGBT rights - to get some of them to fit. Why? Why don't you just say "Israel has forward-looking LGBT rights, especially compared to its neighbours", rather than just saying "the west makes them do it!"
"That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about."
That's just not true. Pro-Israeli states asking Israel to do less war crimes is not the same as them allowing the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries to declare a war of annihilation on Israel. And none of those states have the means of doing that in a way that would satisfy them - at best Israel, the US and coalition of other countries would carpet bomb them; at worst Israel and the US would nuke them. Outside of extremely desperate people and terrorists (which are not mutually exclusive groups), the threat of violence to Israel from outside actors is minimal.
Again, if it was likely to happen - why did more local states not use October 7th as an opportunity to attack whilst Israel was clearly distracted and weakened? Why did Egypt warn Israel that an attack by Hamas was being planned. Why were other Middle Eastern nations normalising relations with Israel if they're just waiting for a moment to strike and wipe them off the map? It isn't 1973 any more, the politics have moved on.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
I have just received the following private message via the site: I am asking my lawyers to write to the site owners to get your details over you calling me an Anti Semite.
Post a withdrawal or prepare for very expensive legal action
Obviously I can't be bothered with this, and in any case do not wish to cause trouble for the site admins.
Apropos of nothing, I would like to withdraw the accusation that @bigjohnowls is an anti-semite, and apologise to him for any distress caused.
However, i would like to add that I was at the march on Sunday, and based on what I saw and what has been reported, I think his characterisation of it as "Hate march in favour of genocide and killing babies" to be nothing short of morally reprehensible.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
You repeatedly mentioned Madagascar; and I'm intrigued as to why, given it was famously a Nazi plan designed to wipe out the Jews - without looking as if they were wiping them out.
Your one-state solution is bullshit, as it gives fuck-all guarantees that the Jews will not be wiped out. "Truth and reconciliation" is just a pathetic get-out clause for what you *know* will happen. Its like October 7th never happened in your eyes.
Given both of the above, I have no doubt you are not interested in the welfare of Jews.
I mentioned Madagascar once, maybe twice? Again, it doesn't change the point that many people involved with the creation of a Jewish state considered places other than Israel as somewhere to put that state, including some Jewish people.
So you think the inevitable consequence of ending the illegal siege of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the West Bank, investigating the crimes of Hamas and the Israeli state and holding any individuals account, the allowing of Palestinian civilians to go back to their homes and participate in a single secular society, with a state body politic and constitution aimed at secular multi-ethnic control is impossible because the Palestinian Arab population would automatically use that as an opportunity to do another Holocaust? And you also believe that if that is true, I am in favour of that?
I don't need you to sign off on my interest in the welfare of Jewish people - I've written here about looking into my own grandfather's family history of displacement across Russia and Eastern Europe, of talking to Jewish friends and family about these issues, of literally marching against anti-fascists with Jewish bloc. I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing, the obsession with Soros, the attacks on Ed Miliband, and the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. How "anti-wokeness" is just a recooking of Judaeo-Bolshevism and that, when you look at violence against Jewish people prior to October 7th, the vast majority of it was by right wingers who believed that Jewish people were the tools of the left. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I care about the welfare of Jewish people, comrades or otherwise, and that not being a Zionist does not hinder that.
You mentioned it two or three times, I believe. Which was a little odd for someone who talks about 'historians' who back his view.
And the point is: you said a proposed Nazi plan to kill off the Jews was the way forward for the Jews pre-1939. You may want to think about that a little. (And it also does not count for the views of the people who lived in Madagascar at the time...)
"I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing,"
Right wing anti-Semitism is utterly wrong. Hopefully everyone on here would agree with that.
But so is left-wing anti-Semtiism. It isn't better, or softer, or fluffier, just because it has your favoured political colouring. It's wrong.
So why do you not mention the increase in anti-Smitism on the left? E.g. Corbyn and his fellow travellers?
You may think you care about Jewish people; you may even believe you do; but there's f-all sign of it on here.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
No political system is perfect. I dare you to name one. But recent history teaches us that democratic constitutional monarchy is probably the least imperfect
True power is exercised by the people via their elected tribunes. As it should be. But the monarchy embodies the ceremonial aspect and is usefully above the politicians - so it can steer and advise and - most importantly - act as a source of stability in times of trouble
Thailand - where I am now - is a great example of that. Democratic Thai politics is corrupt, vivid, angry, and sometimes ceases altogether with periods of military rule. How come Thailand doesn’t sink into civil war like so many countries in the region?
The monarchy
That doesn't make sense. It doesn't follow logical rules. You pick an example that fits your conclusion and ignore any that didn't. Even if there weren't any, and there are, it still isn't logical. It is like saying I have a yellow jelly baby therefore all jelly babies are yellow.
Another brilliant intervention illumined by a dazzling analogy
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
LOL. " but if fascism is a scale, not a binary," is an odd thing to say, and a sign you're on rocky ground. And as I said in another post, some of the definitions fit Israel because they *are* a state under threat, as Oct 7th show. Whereas the fascist definition really refers to 'invented' threats, based on lies such as the Nazi 'stabbed in the back' mythos. The threats to Israel are all too real.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd. Yes, Hamas has the capability to attack Israel. But it doesn't have the capability to destroy Israel, even if it wanted to.
I literally gave you my preferred method of identifying fascisms, which provides a 14 point criteria. Eco even says that not all forms of fascism will tick every criteria, and some may have fewer individual criteria but some so intensely that they are more obviously fascistic. It's one of the reasons why defining fascism (like defining many things, such as democratic) is so difficult - people disagree when it starts and ends. One famous scholar on fascism, for example, in 2016 was not willing to call Trump a fascist but did so after January 6th because he thought that kind of anti-democratic action was enough to warrant that definition. It isn't only fascism after the genocide has happened. It doesn't have to come from the specific Fascisti region of Italy (that's a joke, btw). It is a mode, a model, of thought and politics that depends on the national politics and traditions of the individual country at that time.
"The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd."
That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about.
I've looked at your definition of fascism, and Israel simply doesn't meet it. And as you've shown, you have to twist facts - e.g. LGBT rights - to get some of them to fit. Why? Why don't you just say "Israel has forward-looking LGBT rights, especially compared to its neighbours", rather than just saying "the west makes them do it!"
"That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about."
That's just not true. Pro-Israeli states asking Israel to do less war crimes is not the same as them allowing the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries to declare a war of annihilation on Israel. And none of those states have the means of doing that in a way that would satisfy them - at best Israel, the US and coalition of other countries would carpet bomb them; at worst Israel and the US would nuke them. Outside of extremely desperate people and terrorists (which are not mutually exclusive groups), the threat of violence to Israel from outside actors is minimal.
Again, if it was likely to happen - why did more local states not use October 7th as an opportunity to attack whilst Israel was clearly distracted and weakened? Why did Egypt warn Israel that an attack by Hamas was being planned. Why were other Middle Eastern nations normalising relations with Israel if they're just waiting for a moment to strike and wipe them off the map? It isn't 1973 any more, the politics have moved on.
Post 73, things changed, partly because Israel clarified their Samson Option.
That is, if Israel faced being over run, they would retaliate with nuclear weapons against all states they were currently at war with and their backers. They explicitly included the Soviet Union in the later category.
Because of the geography of Egypt (Aswan dam) a couple of warheads would wipe out Egypt completely. Even the performative “eternal war with Israel” thing became a lethal option.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
I have just received the following private message via the site: I am asking my lawyers to write to the site owners to get your details over you calling me an Anti Semite.
Post a withdrawal or prepare for very expensive legal action
Obviously I can't be bothered with this, and in any case do not wish to cause trouble for the site admins.
Apropos of nothing, I would like to withdraw the accusation that @bigjohnowls is an anti-semite, and apologise to him for any distress caused.
However, i would like to add that I was at the march on Sunday, and based on what I saw and what has been reported, I think his characterisation of it as "Hate march in favour of genocide and killing babies" to be nothing short of morally reprehensible.
If you need independent verification of a personal message (PM), you can add @rcs1000 and/or @TSE via the "Add People to this Conversation" option.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
I have just received the following private message via the site: I am asking my lawyers to write to the site owners to get your details over you calling me an Anti Semite.
Post a withdrawal or prepare for very expensive legal action
Obviously I can't be bothered with this, and in any case do not wish to cause trouble for the site admins.
Apropos of nothing, I would like to withdraw the accusation that @bigjohnowls is an anti-semite, and apologise to him for any distress caused.
However, i would like to add that I was at the march on Sunday, and based on what I saw and what has been reported, I think his characterisation of it as "Hate march in favour of genocide and killing babies" to be nothing short of morally reprehensible.
You can call me an anti-semite if that helps. I don't give a fuck.
What kind of fucking idiot threatens legal action over words said on here??
That’s grounds for banning. That should not happen in our pub
Taking inspiration from Irish hate speech laws reforms?
BANG out of order. Absolutely not in the spirit of PB. We don’t doxx each other. We don’t threaten actual violence on each other. We don’t say the C word. We don’t (overly) insult the mods
There aren’t many rules on PB but there are a few and they keep the site generally civil and much more fun than 97% of forums
Another unwritten rule is, surely, don’t send private messages threatening legal action. FFS - it’s like inviting the cops into our pub to collar @HYUFD for wanting to invade Scotland
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
I have just received the following private message via the site: I am asking my lawyers to write to the site owners to get your details over you calling me an Anti Semite.
Post a withdrawal or prepare for very expensive legal action
Obviously I can't be bothered with this, and in any case do not wish to cause trouble for the site admins.
Apropos of nothing, I would like to withdraw the accusation that @bigjohnowls is an anti-semite, and apologise to him for any distress caused.
However, i would like to add that I was at the march on Sunday, and based on what I saw and what has been reported, I think his characterisation of it as "Hate march in favour of genocide and killing babies" to be nothing short of morally reprehensible.
You can call me an anti-semite if that helps. I don't give a fuck.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
LOL. " but if fascism is a scale, not a binary," is an odd thing to say, and a sign you're on rocky ground. And as I said in another post, some of the definitions fit Israel because they *are* a state under threat, as Oct 7th show. Whereas the fascist definition really refers to 'invented' threats, based on lies such as the Nazi 'stabbed in the back' mythos. The threats to Israel are all too real.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd. Yes, Hamas has the capability to attack Israel. But it doesn't have the capability to destroy Israel, even if it wanted to.
I literally gave you my preferred method of identifying fascisms, which provides a 14 point criteria. Eco even says that not all forms of fascism will tick every criteria, and some may have fewer individual criteria but some so intensely that they are more obviously fascistic. It's one of the reasons why defining fascism (like defining many things, such as democratic) is so difficult - people disagree when it starts and ends. One famous scholar on fascism, for example, in 2016 was not willing to call Trump a fascist but did so after January 6th because he thought that kind of anti-democratic action was enough to warrant that definition. It isn't only fascism after the genocide has happened. It doesn't have to come from the specific Fascisti region of Italy (that's a joke, btw). It is a mode, a model, of thought and politics that depends on the national politics and traditions of the individual country at that time.
"The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd."
That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about.
I've looked at your definition of fascism, and Israel simply doesn't meet it. And as you've shown, you have to twist facts - e.g. LGBT rights - to get some of them to fit. Why? Why don't you just say "Israel has forward-looking LGBT rights, especially compared to its neighbours", rather than just saying "the west makes them do it!"
"That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about."
That's just not true. Pro-Israeli states asking Israel to do less war crimes is not the same as them allowing the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries to declare a war of annihilation on Israel. And none of those states have the means of doing that in a way that would satisfy them - at best Israel, the US and coalition of other countries would carpet bomb them; at worst Israel and the US would nuke them. Outside of extremely desperate people and terrorists (which are not mutually exclusive groups), the threat of violence to Israel from outside actors is minimal.
Again, if it was likely to happen - why did more local states not use October 7th as an opportunity to attack whilst Israel was clearly distracted and weakened? Why did Egypt warn Israel that an attack by Hamas was being planned. Why were other Middle Eastern nations normalising relations with Israel if they're just waiting for a moment to strike and wipe them off the map? It isn't 1973 any more, the politics have moved on.
You do not want Israel to do 'less war crimes'. You want Israel to not defend itself after it is attacked. You want Israel to be subsumed in a 'one state' run by the very group that just murdered many hundreds of its people.
Don't pretend you care about Jews. In fact, don't pretend you care about Palestinians, either - at least, the non-Hamas ones.
Israel has spent the last few decades striving to get peace deals with neighbouring states - the prospect of one with Saudi is alleged to have caused Hamas' atrocity in October. Israel wants peace, and this is to its credit. What is more, it has traded for peace: giving the Sinai back to Egypt for instance, or leaving Gaza in 2006.
But some states - especially Iran - do not. Fortunately Iran does not border Israel, though Syria does.
Many of the neighbouring states - non-Jewish states, btw - fear the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah more than they do Israel. Again, you might want to ask yourself why.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
I have just received the following private message via the site: I am asking my lawyers to write to the site owners to get your details over you calling me an Anti Semite.
Post a withdrawal or prepare for very expensive legal action
Obviously I can't be bothered with this, and in any case do not wish to cause trouble for the site admins.
Apropos of nothing, I would like to withdraw the accusation that @bigjohnowls is an anti-semite, and apologise to him for any distress caused.
However, i would like to add that I was at the march on Sunday, and based on what I saw and what has been reported, I think his characterisation of it as "Hate march in favour of genocide and killing babies" to be nothing short of morally reprehensible.
You can call me an anti-semite if that helps. I don't give a fuck.
What kind of fucking idiot threatens legal action over words said on here??
That’s grounds for banning. That should not happen in our pub
Taking inspiration from Irish hate speech laws reforms?
BANG out of order. Absolutely not in the spirit of PB. We don’t doxx each other. We don’t threaten actual violence on each other. We don’t say the C word. We don’t (overly) insult the mods
There aren’t many rules on PB but there are a few and they keep the site generally civil and much more fun than 97% of forums
Another unwritten rule is, surely, don’t send private messages threatening legal action. FFS - it’s like inviting the cops into our pub to collar @HYUFD for wanting to invade Scotland
Not impressed
I will try to live by your high PB standards in future Sean
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
You repeatedly mentioned Madagascar; and I'm intrigued as to why, given it was famously a Nazi plan designed to wipe out the Jews - without looking as if they were wiping them out.
Your one-state solution is bullshit, as it gives fuck-all guarantees that the Jews will not be wiped out. "Truth and reconciliation" is just a pathetic get-out clause for what you *know* will happen. Its like October 7th never happened in your eyes.
Given both of the above, I have no doubt you are not interested in the welfare of Jews.
I mentioned Madagascar once, maybe twice? Again, it doesn't change the point that many people involved with the creation of a Jewish state considered places other than Israel as somewhere to put that state, including some Jewish people.
So you think the inevitable consequence of ending the illegal siege of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the West Bank, investigating the crimes of Hamas and the Israeli state and holding any individuals account, the allowing of Palestinian civilians to go back to their homes and participate in a single secular society, with a state body politic and constitution aimed at secular multi-ethnic control is impossible because the Palestinian Arab population would automatically use that as an opportunity to do another Holocaust? And you also believe that if that is true, I am in favour of that?
I don't need you to sign off on my interest in the welfare of Jewish people - I've written here about looking into my own grandfather's family history of displacement across Russia and Eastern Europe, of talking to Jewish friends and family about these issues, of literally marching against anti-fascists with Jewish bloc. I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing, the obsession with Soros, the attacks on Ed Miliband, and the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. How "anti-wokeness" is just a recooking of Judaeo-Bolshevism and that, when you look at violence against Jewish people prior to October 7th, the vast majority of it was by right wingers who believed that Jewish people were the tools of the left. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I care about the welfare of Jewish people, comrades or otherwise, and that not being a Zionist does not hinder that.
You mentioned it two or three times, I believe. Which was a little odd for someone who talks about 'historians' who back his view.
And the point is: you said a proposed Nazi plan to kill off the Jews was the way forward for the Jews pre-1939. You may want to think about that a little. (And it also does not count for the views of the people who lived in Madagascar at the time...)
"I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing,"
Right wing anti-Semitism is utterly wrong. Hopefully everyone on here would agree with that.
But so is left-wing anti-Semtiism. It isn't better, or softer, or fluffier, just because it has your favoured political colouring. It's wrong.
So why do you not mention the increase in anti-Smitism on the left? E.g. Corbyn and his fellow travellers?
You may think you care about Jewish people; you may even believe you do; but there's f-all sign of it on here.
I did not say it was a "way forward"! I said, when I was saying that it was a bad decision to put the state of Israel on the land it is on, that different people had considered different places that such a state could be put (such as Madagascar). In terms of what I said would have been a better option was a) the states involved stop being anti-Semites or b) that some part of Europe would be a more suited for the diasporic Jewish population if the only solution was the creation of a Jewish state, because the diaspora was predominantly European and the harm done to the diaspora was done by European powers (not just Nazi Germany, mind, but collaborators across Nazi controlled areas, as well as those Western countries who refused to allow Jewish refugees into their country). The harm was not done by Palestinians who, whilst their leaders may have allied themselves with Nazi Germany (as many countries who were under British imperial rule or had just come out of British imperial rule did or expressed willingness to do) did not materially contribute to the death camps in any way shape or form like the European states did.
I have talked about left wing anti-Semitism, and where I think that it is conflated with left wing anti-Zionism, and where I think it is clearly wrong. I think left wing anti-Semitism comes from the conflation of "capitalist" with "Jewish" - an incorrect conflation and, unfortunately, one people who claim to be fighting anti-Semitism make (with Labour politicians arguing that "criticisms of capitalism are inherently anti-Semitic"). Anti-Semitism on the left is the "socialism of fools".
I think that there were anti-Semites in the Labour party, as there are likely in all political parties and all facets of British life because anti-Semitism has been rife in our culture since Christian conversion if not before, but that much of the claims of anti-Semitism aimed at Corbyn were, again, not done so out of a sincere concern for Jewish people but to make anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism and to make Corbyn into a monster he wasn't. Internal reports by people within the Labour Party have accepted that the complaints process to deal with anti-Semitism was specifically sabotaged by anti-Corbyn Labour staff to help add fuel to this fire.
Do I think Corbyn was the messiah? No. Do I think he was bad at dealing with this issue as a politician? Yes. Do I think he fell into the "socialism of fools" trap? Sometimes (the mural being one of the worst offending examples). Do I think that Corbyn would have enacted policies or encouraged behaviour specifically aimed at oppressing Jewish people, as many journalists and politicians tries to suggest? Of course not.
Also - anti-Semitism on the left has not been linked to the increase of violence against Jewish people; anti-Semitism on the right has.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
I have just received the following private message via the site: I am asking my lawyers to write to the site owners to get your details over you calling me an Anti Semite.
Post a withdrawal or prepare for very expensive legal action
Obviously I can't be bothered with this, and in any case do not wish to cause trouble for the site admins.
Apropos of nothing, I would like to withdraw the accusation that @bigjohnowls is an anti-semite, and apologise to him for any distress caused.
However, i would like to add that I was at the march on Sunday, and based on what I saw and what has been reported, I think his characterisation of it as "Hate march in favour of genocide and killing babies" to be nothing short of morally reprehensible.
Why the feck are we getting ourselves in a tizz over this conflict? It's been ongoing for years and no amount of marches, rousing speeches and resignations in our parliament, calls for ceasefires or spaffing about on here is going to make a blind bit of difference. Whilst I desperately wish it could all be settled peacefully, it's not looking good, so I generally couldn't give a toss about it as performative bleating on here achieves nowt. BJO, you need to grow the fuck up. Everybody else, calm down.
What kind of fucking idiot threatens legal action over words said on here??
That’s grounds for banning. That should not happen in our pub
Taking inspiration from Irish hate speech laws reforms?
BANG out of order. Absolutely not in the spirit of PB. We don’t doxx each other. We don’t threaten actual violence on each other. We don’t say the C word. We don’t (overly) insult the mods
There aren’t many rules on PB but there are a few and they keep the site generally civil and much more fun than 97% of forums
Another unwritten rule is, surely, don’t send private messages threatening legal action. FFS - it’s like inviting the cops into our pub to collar @HYUFD for wanting to invade Scotland
Not impressed
I will try to live by your high PB standards in future Sean
I mean Leon!
I am not “Sean” but it appears like you might be the twat that involved the mods with a threat of legal action
If it was, have a word with yourself, then apologise to all
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
LOL. " but if fascism is a scale, not a binary," is an odd thing to say, and a sign you're on rocky ground. And as I said in another post, some of the definitions fit Israel because they *are* a state under threat, as Oct 7th show. Whereas the fascist definition really refers to 'invented' threats, based on lies such as the Nazi 'stabbed in the back' mythos. The threats to Israel are all too real.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd. Yes, Hamas has the capability to attack Israel. But it doesn't have the capability to destroy Israel, even if it wanted to.
I literally gave you my preferred method of identifying fascisms, which provides a 14 point criteria. Eco even says that not all forms of fascism will tick every criteria, and some may have fewer individual criteria but some so intensely that they are more obviously fascistic. It's one of the reasons why defining fascism (like defining many things, such as democratic) is so difficult - people disagree when it starts and ends. One famous scholar on fascism, for example, in 2016 was not willing to call Trump a fascist but did so after January 6th because he thought that kind of anti-democratic action was enough to warrant that definition. It isn't only fascism after the genocide has happened. It doesn't have to come from the specific Fascisti region of Italy (that's a joke, btw). It is a mode, a model, of thought and politics that depends on the national politics and traditions of the individual country at that time.
"The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd."
That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about.
I've looked at your definition of fascism, and Israel simply doesn't meet it. And as you've shown, you have to twist facts - e.g. LGBT rights - to get some of them to fit. Why? Why don't you just say "Israel has forward-looking LGBT rights, especially compared to its neighbours", rather than just saying "the west makes them do it!"
"That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about."
That's just not true. Pro-Israeli states asking Israel to do less war crimes is not the same as them allowing the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries to declare a war of annihilation on Israel. And none of those states have the means of doing that in a way that would satisfy them - at best Israel, the US and coalition of other countries would carpet bomb them; at worst Israel and the US would nuke them. Outside of extremely desperate people and terrorists (which are not mutually exclusive groups), the threat of violence to Israel from outside actors is minimal.
Again, if it was likely to happen - why did more local states not use October 7th as an opportunity to attack whilst Israel was clearly distracted and weakened? Why did Egypt warn Israel that an attack by Hamas was being planned. Why were other Middle Eastern nations normalising relations with Israel if they're just waiting for a moment to strike and wipe them off the map? It isn't 1973 any more, the politics have moved on.
You do not want Israel to do 'less war crimes'. You want Israel to not defend itself after it is attacked. You want Israel to be subsumed in a 'one state' run by the very group that just murdered many hundreds of its people.
Don't pretend you care about Jews. In fact, don't pretend you care about Palestinians, either - at least, the non-Hamas ones.
Israel has spent the last few decades striving to get peace deals with neighbouring states - the prospect of one with Saudi is alleged to have caused Hamas' atrocity in October. Israel wants peace, and this is to its credit. What is more, it has traded for peace: giving the Sinai back to Egypt for instance, or leaving Gaza in 2006.
But some states - especially Iran - do not. Fortunately Iran does not border Israel, though Syria does.
Many of the neighbouring states - non-Jewish states, btw - fear the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah more than they do Israel. Again, you might want to ask yourself why.
See, now you're just straight up accusing me of only caring about Hamas and basically being a Hamas sympathiser - a crime. I have no interest in continuing conversation with you.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
You repeatedly mentioned Madagascar; and I'm intrigued as to why, given it was famously a Nazi plan designed to wipe out the Jews - without looking as if they were wiping them out.
Your one-state solution is bullshit, as it gives fuck-all guarantees that the Jews will not be wiped out. "Truth and reconciliation" is just a pathetic get-out clause for what you *know* will happen. Its like October 7th never happened in your eyes.
Given both of the above, I have no doubt you are not interested in the welfare of Jews.
I mentioned Madagascar once, maybe twice? Again, it doesn't change the point that many people involved with the creation of a Jewish state considered places other than Israel as somewhere to put that state, including some Jewish people.
So you think the inevitable consequence of ending the illegal siege of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the West Bank, investigating the crimes of Hamas and the Israeli state and holding any individuals account, the allowing of Palestinian civilians to go back to their homes and participate in a single secular society, with a state body politic and constitution aimed at secular multi-ethnic control is impossible because the Palestinian Arab population would automatically use that as an opportunity to do another Holocaust? And you also believe that if that is true, I am in favour of that?
I don't need you to sign off on my interest in the welfare of Jewish people - I've written here about looking into my own grandfather's family history of displacement across Russia and Eastern Europe, of talking to Jewish friends and family about these issues, of literally marching against anti-fascists with Jewish bloc. I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing, the obsession with Soros, the attacks on Ed Miliband, and the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. How "anti-wokeness" is just a recooking of Judaeo-Bolshevism and that, when you look at violence against Jewish people prior to October 7th, the vast majority of it was by right wingers who believed that Jewish people were the tools of the left. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I care about the welfare of Jewish people, comrades or otherwise, and that not being a Zionist does not hinder that.
You mentioned it two or three times, I believe. Which was a little odd for someone who talks about 'historians' who back his view.
And the point is: you said a proposed Nazi plan to kill off the Jews was the way forward for the Jews pre-1939. You may want to think about that a little. (And it also does not count for the views of the people who lived in Madagascar at the time...)
"I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing,"
Right wing anti-Semitism is utterly wrong. Hopefully everyone on here would agree with that.
But so is left-wing anti-Semtiism. It isn't better, or softer, or fluffier, just because it has your favoured political colouring. It's wrong.
So why do you not mention the increase in anti-Smitism on the left? E.g. Corbyn and his fellow travellers?
You may think you care about Jewish people; you may even believe you do; but there's f-all sign of it on here.
I did not say it was a "way forward"! I said, when I was saying that it was a bad decision to put the state of Israel on the land it is on, that different people had considered different places that such a state could be put (such as Madagascar). In terms of what I said would have been a better option was a) the states involved stop being anti-Semites or b) that some part of Europe would be a more suited for the diasporic Jewish population if the only solution was the creation of a Jewish state, because the diaspora was predominantly European and the harm done to the diaspora was done by European powers (not just Nazi Germany, mind, but collaborators across Nazi controlled areas, as well as those Western countries who refused to allow Jewish refugees into their country). The harm was not done by Palestinians who, whilst their leaders may have allied themselves with Nazi Germany (as many countries who were under British imperial rule or had just come out of British imperial rule did or expressed willingness to do) did not materially contribute to the death camps in any way shape or form like the European states did.
I have talked about left wing anti-Semitism, and where I think that it is conflated with left wing anti-Zionism, and where I think it is clearly wrong. I think left wing anti-Semitism comes from the conflation of "capitalist" with "Jewish" - an incorrect conflation and, unfortunately, one people who claim to be fighting anti-Semitism make (with Labour politicians arguing that "criticisms of capitalism are inherently anti-Semitic"). Anti-Semitism on the left is the "socialism of fools".
I think that there were anti-Semites in the Labour party, as there are likely in all political parties and all facets of British life because anti-Semitism has been rife in our culture since Christian conversion if not before, but that much of the claims of anti-Semitism aimed at Corbyn were, again, not done so out of a sincere concern for Jewish people but to make anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism and to make Corbyn into a monster he wasn't. Internal reports by people within the Labour Party have accepted that the complaints process to deal with anti-Semitism was specifically sabotaged by anti-Corbyn Labour staff to help add fuel to this fire.
Do I think Corbyn was the messiah? No. Do I think he was bad at dealing with this issue as a politician? Yes. Do I think he fell into the "socialism of fools" trap? Sometimes (the mural being one of the worst offending examples). Do I think that Corbyn would have enacted policies or encouraged behaviour specifically aimed at oppressing Jewish people, as many journalists and politicians tries to suggest? Of course not.
Also - anti-Semitism on the left has not been linked to the increase of violence against Jewish people; anti-Semitism on the right has.
I know this is the pot calling the kettle black, but you might want to be a little more concise...
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
LOL. " but if fascism is a scale, not a binary," is an odd thing to say, and a sign you're on rocky ground. And as I said in another post, some of the definitions fit Israel because they *are* a state under threat, as Oct 7th show. Whereas the fascist definition really refers to 'invented' threats, based on lies such as the Nazi 'stabbed in the back' mythos. The threats to Israel are all too real.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd. Yes, Hamas has the capability to attack Israel. But it doesn't have the capability to destroy Israel, even if it wanted to.
I literally gave you my preferred method of identifying fascisms, which provides a 14 point criteria. Eco even says that not all forms of fascism will tick every criteria, and some may have fewer individual criteria but some so intensely that they are more obviously fascistic. It's one of the reasons why defining fascism (like defining many things, such as democratic) is so difficult - people disagree when it starts and ends. One famous scholar on fascism, for example, in 2016 was not willing to call Trump a fascist but did so after January 6th because he thought that kind of anti-democratic action was enough to warrant that definition. It isn't only fascism after the genocide has happened. It doesn't have to come from the specific Fascisti region of Italy (that's a joke, btw). It is a mode, a model, of thought and politics that depends on the national politics and traditions of the individual country at that time.
"The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd."
That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about.
I've looked at your definition of fascism, and Israel simply doesn't meet it. And as you've shown, you have to twist facts - e.g. LGBT rights - to get some of them to fit. Why? Why don't you just say "Israel has forward-looking LGBT rights, especially compared to its neighbours", rather than just saying "the west makes them do it!"
"That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about."
That's just not true. Pro-Israeli states asking Israel to do less war crimes is not the same as them allowing the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries to declare a war of annihilation on Israel. And none of those states have the means of doing that in a way that would satisfy them - at best Israel, the US and coalition of other countries would carpet bomb them; at worst Israel and the US would nuke them. Outside of extremely desperate people and terrorists (which are not mutually exclusive groups), the threat of violence to Israel from outside actors is minimal.
Again, if it was likely to happen - why did more local states not use October 7th as an opportunity to attack whilst Israel was clearly distracted and weakened? Why did Egypt warn Israel that an attack by Hamas was being planned. Why were other Middle Eastern nations normalising relations with Israel if they're just waiting for a moment to strike and wipe them off the map? It isn't 1973 any more, the politics have moved on.
You do not want Israel to do 'less war crimes'. You want Israel to not defend itself after it is attacked. You want Israel to be subsumed in a 'one state' run by the very group that just murdered many hundreds of its people.
Don't pretend you care about Jews. In fact, don't pretend you care about Palestinians, either - at least, the non-Hamas ones.
Israel has spent the last few decades striving to get peace deals with neighbouring states - the prospect of one with Saudi is alleged to have caused Hamas' atrocity in October. Israel wants peace, and this is to its credit. What is more, it has traded for peace: giving the Sinai back to Egypt for instance, or leaving Gaza in 2006.
But some states - especially Iran - do not. Fortunately Iran does not border Israel, though Syria does.
Many of the neighbouring states - non-Jewish states, btw - fear the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah more than they do Israel. Again, you might want to ask yourself why.
See, now you're just straight up accusing me of only caring about Hamas and basically being a Hamas sympathiser - a crime. I have no interest in continuing conversation with you.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
You repeatedly mentioned Madagascar; and I'm intrigued as to why, given it was famously a Nazi plan designed to wipe out the Jews - without looking as if they were wiping them out.
Your one-state solution is bullshit, as it gives fuck-all guarantees that the Jews will not be wiped out. "Truth and reconciliation" is just a pathetic get-out clause for what you *know* will happen. Its like October 7th never happened in your eyes.
Given both of the above, I have no doubt you are not interested in the welfare of Jews.
I mentioned Madagascar once, maybe twice? Again, it doesn't change the point that many people involved with the creation of a Jewish state considered places other than Israel as somewhere to put that state, including some Jewish people.
So you think the inevitable consequence of ending the illegal siege of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the West Bank, investigating the crimes of Hamas and the Israeli state and holding any individuals account, the allowing of Palestinian civilians to go back to their homes and participate in a single secular society, with a state body politic and constitution aimed at secular multi-ethnic control is impossible because the Palestinian Arab population would automatically use that as an opportunity to do another Holocaust? And you also believe that if that is true, I am in favour of that?
I don't need you to sign off on my interest in the welfare of Jewish people - I've written here about looking into my own grandfather's family history of displacement across Russia and Eastern Europe, of talking to Jewish friends and family about these issues, of literally marching against anti-fascists with Jewish bloc. I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing, the obsession with Soros, the attacks on Ed Miliband, and the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. How "anti-wokeness" is just a recooking of Judaeo-Bolshevism and that, when you look at violence against Jewish people prior to October 7th, the vast majority of it was by right wingers who believed that Jewish people were the tools of the left. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I care about the welfare of Jewish people, comrades or otherwise, and that not being a Zionist does not hinder that.
You mentioned it two or three times, I believe. Which was a little odd for someone who talks about 'historians' who back his view.
And the point is: you said a proposed Nazi plan to kill off the Jews was the way forward for the Jews pre-1939. You may want to think about that a little. (And it also does not count for the views of the people who lived in Madagascar at the time...)
"I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing,"
Right wing anti-Semitism is utterly wrong. Hopefully everyone on here would agree with that.
But so is left-wing anti-Semtiism. It isn't better, or softer, or fluffier, just because it has your favoured political colouring. It's wrong.
So why do you not mention the increase in anti-Smitism on the left? E.g. Corbyn and his fellow travellers?
You may think you care about Jewish people; you may even believe you do; but there's f-all sign of it on here.
I did not say it was a "way forward"! I said, when I was saying that it was a bad decision to put the state of Israel on the land it is on, that different people had considered different places that such a state could be put (such as Madagascar). In terms of what I said would have been a better option was a) the states involved stop being anti-Semites or b) that some part of Europe would be a more suited for the diasporic Jewish population if the only solution was the creation of a Jewish state, because the diaspora was predominantly European and the harm done to the diaspora was done by European powers (not just Nazi Germany, mind, but collaborators across Nazi controlled areas, as well as those Western countries who refused to allow Jewish refugees into their country). The harm was not done by Palestinians who, whilst their leaders may have allied themselves with Nazi Germany (as many countries who were under British imperial rule or had just come out of British imperial rule did or expressed willingness to do) did not materially contribute to the death camps in any way shape or form like the European states did.
I have talked about left wing anti-Semitism, and where I think that it is conflated with left wing anti-Zionism, and where I think it is clearly wrong. I think left wing anti-Semitism comes from the conflation of "capitalist" with "Jewish" - an incorrect conflation and, unfortunately, one people who claim to be fighting anti-Semitism make (with Labour politicians arguing that "criticisms of capitalism are inherently anti-Semitic"). Anti-Semitism on the left is the "socialism of fools".
I think that there were anti-Semites in the Labour party, as there are likely in all political parties and all facets of British life because anti-Semitism has been rife in our culture since Christian conversion if not before, but that much of the claims of anti-Semitism aimed at Corbyn were, again, not done so out of a sincere concern for Jewish people but to make anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism and to make Corbyn into a monster he wasn't. Internal reports by people within the Labour Party have accepted that the complaints process to deal with anti-Semitism was specifically sabotaged by anti-Corbyn Labour staff to help add fuel to this fire.
Do I think Corbyn was the messiah? No. Do I think he was bad at dealing with this issue as a politician? Yes. Do I think he fell into the "socialism of fools" trap? Sometimes (the mural being one of the worst offending examples). Do I think that Corbyn would have enacted policies or encouraged behaviour specifically aimed at oppressing Jewish people, as many journalists and politicians tries to suggest? Of course not.
Also - anti-Semitism on the left has not been linked to the increase of violence against Jewish people; anti-Semitism on the right has.
The recent increase in anti-Semitic incidents (multiple hundred percent) in the U.K. have not been from the far-Right.
The spike in islamophobic racist incidents probably is.
Why the feck are we getting ourselves in a tizz over this conflict? It's been ongoing for years and no amount of marches, rousing speeches and resignations in our parliament, calls for ceasefires or spaffing about on here is going to make a blind bit of difference. Whilst I desperately wish it could all be settled peacefully, it's not looking good, so I generally couldn't give a toss about it as performative bleating on here achieves nowt. BJO, you need to grow the fuck up. Everybody else, calm down.
I once saw some history wanker on the TV say that Al-Quds has been invaded, occupied, besieged or sacked 50+ times so it's never going to be settled in our lifetimes. It's the John Burridge of middle eastern cities.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Looking for somebody else to blame other than the fact her own greed took a massive amount of money out of the company just a couple of years ago.
Apparently they also got very lazy in following trends and sourcing of goods, where as B&M, the Range etc have overtaken them to be the best at securing on-trend items at the cheapest prices.
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
I'm beginning to give up on John Gray: he cannot get to the point to save his life. I like his work, but I think I like his articles (which have been edited and structured) more than his books and interviews (which haven't). "Black Mass" is a slog. It's the ideal toilet book, insofar as you can open it up at any point and read it, but although his paragraphs are great his chapters are difficult, skipping thru different points in spacetime like a mad TARDIS. It's Rome! It's early Christianity! It's Medaeval Spain! It's Nazi Germany! It's Egypt! GET TO THE BLOODY POINT, YOU PHILOSOPHER YOU.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
You repeatedly mentioned Madagascar; and I'm intrigued as to why, given it was famously a Nazi plan designed to wipe out the Jews - without looking as if they were wiping them out.
Your one-state solution is bullshit, as it gives fuck-all guarantees that the Jews will not be wiped out. "Truth and reconciliation" is just a pathetic get-out clause for what you *know* will happen. Its like October 7th never happened in your eyes.
Given both of the above, I have no doubt you are not interested in the welfare of Jews.
I mentioned Madagascar once, maybe twice? Again, it doesn't change the point that many people involved with the creation of a Jewish state considered places other than Israel as somewhere to put that state, including some Jewish people.
So you think the inevitable consequence of ending the illegal siege of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the West Bank, investigating the crimes of Hamas and the Israeli state and holding any individuals account, the allowing of Palestinian civilians to go back to their homes and participate in a single secular society, with a state body politic and constitution aimed at secular multi-ethnic control is impossible because the Palestinian Arab population would automatically use that as an opportunity to do another Holocaust? And you also believe that if that is true, I am in favour of that?
I don't need you to sign off on my interest in the welfare of Jewish people - I've written here about looking into my own grandfather's family history of displacement across Russia and Eastern Europe, of talking to Jewish friends and family about these issues, of literally marching against anti-fascists with Jewish bloc. I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing, the obsession with Soros, the attacks on Ed Miliband, and the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. How "anti-wokeness" is just a recooking of Judaeo-Bolshevism and that, when you look at violence against Jewish people prior to October 7th, the vast majority of it was by right wingers who believed that Jewish people were the tools of the left. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I care about the welfare of Jewish people, comrades or otherwise, and that not being a Zionist does not hinder that.
You mentioned it two or three times, I believe. Which was a little odd for someone who talks about 'historians' who back his view.
And the point is: you said a proposed Nazi plan to kill off the Jews was the way forward for the Jews pre-1939. You may want to think about that a little. (And it also does not count for the views of the people who lived in Madagascar at the time...)
"I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing,"
Right wing anti-Semitism is utterly wrong. Hopefully everyone on here would agree with that.
But so is left-wing anti-Semtiism. It isn't better, or softer, or fluffier, just because it has your favoured political colouring. It's wrong.
So why do you not mention the increase in anti-Smitism on the left? E.g. Corbyn and his fellow travellers?
You may think you care about Jewish people; you may even believe you do; but there's f-all sign of it on here.
I did not say it was a "way forward"! I said, when I was saying that it was a bad decision to put the state of Israel on the land it is on, that different people had considered different places that such a state could be put (such as Madagascar). In terms of what I said would have been a better option was a) the states involved stop being anti-Semites or b) that some part of Europe would be a more suited for the diasporic Jewish population if the only solution was the creation of a Jewish state, because the diaspora was predominantly European and the harm done to the diaspora was done by European powers (not just Nazi Germany, mind, but collaborators across Nazi controlled areas, as well as those Western countries who refused to allow Jewish refugees into their country). The harm was not done by Palestinians who, whilst their leaders may have allied themselves with Nazi Germany (as many countries who were under British imperial rule or had just come out of British imperial rule did or expressed willingness to do) did not materially contribute to the death camps in any way shape or form like the European states did.
I have talked about left wing anti-Semitism, and where I think that it is conflated with left wing anti-Zionism, and where I think it is clearly wrong. I think left wing anti-Semitism comes from the conflation of "capitalist" with "Jewish" - an incorrect conflation and, unfortunately, one people who claim to be fighting anti-Semitism make (with Labour politicians arguing that "criticisms of capitalism are inherently anti-Semitic"). Anti-Semitism on the left is the "socialism of fools".
I think that there were anti-Semites in the Labour party, as there are likely in all political parties and all facets of British life because anti-Semitism has been rife in our culture since Christian conversion if not before, but that much of the claims of anti-Semitism aimed at Corbyn were, again, not done so out of a sincere concern for Jewish people but to make anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism and to make Corbyn into a monster he wasn't. Internal reports by people within the Labour Party have accepted that the complaints process to deal with anti-Semitism was specifically sabotaged by anti-Corbyn Labour staff to help add fuel to this fire.
Do I think Corbyn was the messiah? No. Do I think he was bad at dealing with this issue as a politician? Yes. Do I think he fell into the "socialism of fools" trap? Sometimes (the mural being one of the worst offending examples). Do I think that Corbyn would have enacted policies or encouraged behaviour specifically aimed at oppressing Jewish people, as many journalists and politicians tries to suggest? Of course not.
Also - anti-Semitism on the left has not been linked to the increase of violence against Jewish people; anti-Semitism on the right has.
The recent increase in anti-Semitic incidents (multiple hundred percent) in the U.K. have not been from the far-Right.
The spike in islamophobic racist incidents probably is.
I heard a pro Israel activist say in a TV interview she had heard that a Jewish girl in Oxfordshire had her hair set on fire recently at her school.
Cant believe that didnt make the front pages sounds an awful case of Antisemitism
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
No it was definitely Plato. At the time Tim was being called out on all the BS backstories he was coming up with and Plato put 2+2 together of publicly available information and posted it all on here.
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
No it was definitely Plato. At the time Tim was being called out on all the BS backstories he was coming up with and Plato put 2+2 together of publicly available information and posted it all on here.
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
No it was definitely Plato. At the time Tim was being called out on all the BS backstories he was coming up with and Plato put 2+2 together of publicly available information and posted it all on here.
IIRC there were other people involved, but it was Plato who published it.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
You repeatedly mentioned Madagascar; and I'm intrigued as to why, given it was famously a Nazi plan designed to wipe out the Jews - without looking as if they were wiping them out.
Your one-state solution is bullshit, as it gives fuck-all guarantees that the Jews will not be wiped out. "Truth and reconciliation" is just a pathetic get-out clause for what you *know* will happen. Its like October 7th never happened in your eyes.
Given both of the above, I have no doubt you are not interested in the welfare of Jews.
I mentioned Madagascar once, maybe twice? Again, it doesn't change the point that many people involved with the creation of a Jewish state considered places other than Israel as somewhere to put that state, including some Jewish people.
So you think the inevitable consequence of ending the illegal siege of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the West Bank, investigating the crimes of Hamas and the Israeli state and holding any individuals account, the allowing of Palestinian civilians to go back to their homes and participate in a single secular society, with a state body politic and constitution aimed at secular multi-ethnic control is impossible because the Palestinian Arab population would automatically use that as an opportunity to do another Holocaust? And you also believe that if that is true, I am in favour of that?
I don't need you to sign off on my interest in the welfare of Jewish people - I've written here about looking into my own grandfather's family history of displacement across Russia and Eastern Europe, of talking to Jewish friends and family about these issues, of literally marching against anti-fascists with Jewish bloc. I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing, the obsession with Soros, the attacks on Ed Miliband, and the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. How "anti-wokeness" is just a recooking of Judaeo-Bolshevism and that, when you look at violence against Jewish people prior to October 7th, the vast majority of it was by right wingers who believed that Jewish people were the tools of the left. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I care about the welfare of Jewish people, comrades or otherwise, and that not being a Zionist does not hinder that.
You mentioned it two or three times, I believe. Which was a little odd for someone who talks about 'historians' who back his view.
And the point is: you said a proposed Nazi plan to kill off the Jews was the way forward for the Jews pre-1939. You may want to think about that a little. (And it also does not count for the views of the people who lived in Madagascar at the time...)
"I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing,"
Right wing anti-Semitism is utterly wrong. Hopefully everyone on here would agree with that.
But so is left-wing anti-Semtiism. It isn't better, or softer, or fluffier, just because it has your favoured political colouring. It's wrong.
So why do you not mention the increase in anti-Smitism on the left? E.g. Corbyn and his fellow travellers?
You may think you care about Jewish people; you may even believe you do; but there's f-all sign of it on here.
I did not say it was a "way forward"! I said, when I was saying that it was a bad decision to put the state of Israel on the land it is on, that different people had considered different places that such a state could be put (such as Madagascar). In terms of what I said would have been a better option was a) the states involved stop being anti-Semites or b) that some part of Europe would be a more suited for the diasporic Jewish population if the only solution was the creation of a Jewish state, because the diaspora was predominantly European and the harm done to the diaspora was done by European powers (not just Nazi Germany, mind, but collaborators across Nazi controlled areas, as well as those Western countries who refused to allow Jewish refugees into their country). The harm was not done by Palestinians who, whilst their leaders may have allied themselves with Nazi Germany (as many countries who were under British imperial rule or had just come out of British imperial rule did or expressed willingness to do) did not materially contribute to the death camps in any way shape or form like the European states did.
I have talked about left wing anti-Semitism, and where I think that it is conflated with left wing anti-Zionism, and where I think it is clearly wrong. I think left wing anti-Semitism comes from the conflation of "capitalist" with "Jewish" - an incorrect conflation and, unfortunately, one people who claim to be fighting anti-Semitism make (with Labour politicians arguing that "criticisms of capitalism are inherently anti-Semitic"). Anti-Semitism on the left is the "socialism of fools".
I think that there were anti-Semites in the Labour party, as there are likely in all political parties and all facets of British life because anti-Semitism has been rife in our culture since Christian conversion if not before, but that much of the claims of anti-Semitism aimed at Corbyn were, again, not done so out of a sincere concern for Jewish people but to make anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism and to make Corbyn into a monster he wasn't. Internal reports by people within the Labour Party have accepted that the complaints process to deal with anti-Semitism was specifically sabotaged by anti-Corbyn Labour staff to help add fuel to this fire.
Do I think Corbyn was the messiah? No. Do I think he was bad at dealing with this issue as a politician? Yes. Do I think he fell into the "socialism of fools" trap? Sometimes (the mural being one of the worst offending examples). Do I think that Corbyn would have enacted policies or encouraged behaviour specifically aimed at oppressing Jewish people, as many journalists and politicians tries to suggest? Of course not.
Also - anti-Semitism on the left has not been linked to the increase of violence against Jewish people; anti-Semitism on the right has.
The recent increase in anti-Semitic incidents (multiple hundred percent) in the U.K. have not been from the far-Right.
The spike in islamophobic racist incidents probably is.
I heard a pro Israel activist say in a TV interview she had heard that a Jewish girl in Oxfordshire had her hair set on fire recently at her school.
Cant believe that didnt make the front pages sounds an awful case of Antisemitism
Probably because it’s a social media cried wolf story that didn’t actually occur.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
We have spoken this before on here, but Plato was a casebook example of internet + social media + life issues leads people down some crazy rabbit holes.
I remember that people from different political backgrounds met her IRL before the craziness and that perfectly pleasant. Fast forward just a few years and it was QAnon conspiracy stuff.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Yay! Another victory for "set the markets free" Trussism.
Except it utter BS. She is solely responsible for Wilko going from a solid business to busto by taking £100 millions out of the business and Wilko being overtaken by their rivals.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Yay! Another victory for "set the markets free" Trussism.
More a victory for “I was running this perfectly sound business, when suddenly the insane debt leveraging that I’d engineered blew up in my face. Who could have seen that coming?”
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Yay! Another victory for "set the markets free" Trussism.
More a victory for “I was running this perfectly sound business, when suddenly the insane debt leveraging that I’d engineered blew up in my face. Who could have seen that coming?”
To me it borders on the criminal when controlling interests in companies undertake such approaches. Bit like the two bit energy companies who would bet the farm on being able to take high risk trading strategies in the energy markets and should it go tits up they walk away and the government left to pick up the bill.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Yay! Another victory for "set the markets free" Trussism.
More a victory for “I was running this perfectly sound business, when suddenly the insane debt leveraging that I’d engineered blew up in my face. Who could have seen that coming?”
To me it borders on the criminal when companies undertake such approaches.
I find it strange that a stress test isn’t part of the audit for large concerns.
We have spoken this before on here, but Plato was a casebook example of internet + social media + life issues leads people down some crazy rabbit holes.
I remember that people from different political backgrounds met her IRL before the craziness and that perfectly pleasant. Fast forward just a few years and it was QAnon conspiracy stuff.
Yes, her conspiracy obsessions seemed wholly focussed on US politics and institutions: the Clintons, Obama, CNN. And I think she genuinely believed Trump was the white knight on horseback to battle and defeat it all. Rather curious for a woman from Eastbourne (or wherever).
We have spoken this before on here, but Plato was a casebook example of internet + social media + life issues leads people down some crazy rabbit holes.
I remember that people from different political backgrounds met her IRL before the craziness and that perfectly pleasant. Fast forward just a few years and it was QAnon conspiracy stuff.
There was a photo posted in a Loughborough Facebook group of a recent ring around the moon, caused by ice crystals in the atmosphere. It degenerated into a conspiracy theory mess, full of flat earth, antivax, fake moonlanding/space is not real, chemtrail, you can't go to Antarctica because NASA won't allow it ....... I was surprised at how many people I recognised who are nuts.
Re Wilkinsons, if I remember correctly not only did they have insane debt leveraging, they had also already burning through £10s millions of rescue money from other sources (I think 2 lots of £40 million was invested in them) before the narrative that the media will run with is that Truss killed the business.
What is defamation: "Defamation is the publication to one or more third parties of a statement about you which has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to your reputation. The defamatory publication will either be a libel or (less commonly) a slander (see below)."
What if I am not named?: You may still be able to bring a claim for libel or slander as long as you are identifiable to a sufficient number of people who would have seen or read the publication in question and understood it to refer to you.
What defences are available in defamation claims? 4 defences - Truth, Honest Opinion, Public Interest, Privilege
So BJO vs Endilion has two basic barriers: 1. Who the actual is @bigjohnowls? Is he a definable person with a name and reputation which can be identified by the public? I have doxxed myself and will do so more often in 2024, but has Mr Owls? A name? Am address? A reputation previously established and understood as being BJO on here?
Its pretty hard to argue that your reputation has been publicly defamed when you are an anonymous user ID. BJO would need to demonstrate that we all know who he is and that the public all know who he is so that the people "who would have seen or read the publication in question and understood it to refer to you."
2. Honest Opinion. It is an absolute principle of our legal system that people are not restricted from having opinions about public figures based on what that figure says and does.
So the defence is "if the publisher can show that what they published was a statement of opinion" - this is a debate board so everything here is opinion; "that the statement complained of indicated the basis of that opinion; and that an honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact which existed at the time the statement was made." To demonstrate the basis for said honest opinion, everything said by the complainant is evidence. And an awful lot has been said. The complainant would need to show "that the defendant did in fact not hold the opinion."
Methinks an Arkell vs Pressdram response is appropriate.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
No it was definitely Plato. At the time Tim was being called out on all the BS backstories he was coming up with and Plato put 2+2 together of publicly available information and posted it all on here.
tim not Tim
I thought it was a Poster called Sean Thomas that doxed tim
Neither of them post now! I logged on the next morning and the former had been banned but as i wasnt on the night before i could be wrong.
Can you dox people by asking the site via a PM or does it have to be in public.
There are quite a few people on here who know my real name and background BTW although not most obvs
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
LOL. " but if fascism is a scale, not a binary," is an odd thing to say, and a sign you're on rocky ground. And as I said in another post, some of the definitions fit Israel because they *are* a state under threat, as Oct 7th show. Whereas the fascist definition really refers to 'invented' threats, based on lies such as the Nazi 'stabbed in the back' mythos. The threats to Israel are all too real.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd. Yes, Hamas has the capability to attack Israel. But it doesn't have the capability to destroy Israel, even if it wanted to.
I literally gave you my preferred method of identifying fascisms, which provides a 14 point criteria. Eco even says that not all forms of fascism will tick every criteria, and some may have fewer individual criteria but some so intensely that they are more obviously fascistic. It's one of the reasons why defining fascism (like defining many things, such as democratic) is so difficult - people disagree when it starts and ends. One famous scholar on fascism, for example, in 2016 was not willing to call Trump a fascist but did so after January 6th because he thought that kind of anti-democratic action was enough to warrant that definition. It isn't only fascism after the genocide has happened. It doesn't have to come from the specific Fascisti region of Italy (that's a joke, btw). It is a mode, a model, of thought and politics that depends on the national politics and traditions of the individual country at that time.
"The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd."
That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about.
I've looked at your definition of fascism, and Israel simply doesn't meet it. And as you've shown, you have to twist facts - e.g. LGBT rights - to get some of them to fit. Why? Why don't you just say "Israel has forward-looking LGBT rights, especially compared to its neighbours", rather than just saying "the west makes them do it!"
"That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about."
That's just not true. Pro-Israeli states asking Israel to do less war crimes is not the same as them allowing the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries to declare a war of annihilation on Israel. And none of those states have the means of doing that in a way that would satisfy them - at best Israel, the US and coalition of other countries would carpet bomb them; at worst Israel and the US would nuke them. Outside of extremely desperate people and terrorists (which are not mutually exclusive groups), the threat of violence to Israel from outside actors is minimal.
Again, if it was likely to happen - why did more local states not use October 7th as an opportunity to attack whilst Israel was clearly distracted and weakened? Why did Egypt warn Israel that an attack by Hamas was being planned. Why were other Middle Eastern nations normalising relations with Israel if they're just waiting for a moment to strike and wipe them off the map? It isn't 1973 any more, the politics have moved on.
Post 73, things changed, partly because Israel clarified their Samson Option.
That is, if Israel faced being over run, they would retaliate with nuclear weapons against all states they were currently at war with and their backers. They explicitly included the Soviet Union in the later category.
Because of the geography of Egypt (Aswan dam) a couple of warheads would wipe out Egypt completely. Even the performative “eternal war with Israel” thing became a lethal option.
Given the recent case of "Big Boat Stuck", hitting 10% of global trade, they could probably render the Suez canal inoperable with a non-nuclear option.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
We have spoken this before on here, but Plato was a casebook example of internet + social media + life issues leads people down some crazy rabbit holes.
I remember that people from different political backgrounds met her IRL before the craziness and that perfectly pleasant. Fast forward just a few years and it was QAnon conspiracy stuff.
Yes, her conspiracy obsessions seemed wholly focussed on US politics and institutions: the Clintons, Obama, CNN. And I think she genuinely believed Trump was the white knight on horseback to battle and defeat it all. Rather curious for a woman from Eastbourne (or wherever).
I was quite mean to her, in a PB way that amused me - even though I liked her at other times. She was fundamentally lonely, I think, and had quite a sad life - divorce, no kids, money problems
And then she went and died leaving me all guilty. A lesson. RIP Plato
As for why the fuck anyone cares, it all comes down to the powerful vs the powerless dynamic we have discussed.
In particular the left allies itself with anyone it thinks is powerless, regardless of any of that entity's other failings.
The left championed Israel in its early years of existence as it was perceived to be weak and now champions Hamas for the same reasons.
The "Powerless" can be truly awful people. @148grss mentioned people allied with the Nazis against the British Empire. They included the IRA, the Grand Mufti, John Vorster, and Subha Chandra Bose. So did all manner of awful groups across Europe, who included themselves among the "Powerless". The Nazis were adept at recruiting the world's scum to serve them.
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
No it was definitely Plato. At the time Tim was being called out on all the BS backstories he was coming up with and Plato put 2+2 together of publicly available information and posted it all on here.
tim not Tim
I thought it was a Poster called Sean Thomas that doxed tim
Neither of them post now! I logged on the next morning and the former had been banned but as i wasnt on the night before i could be wrong.
Can you dox people by asking the site via a PM or does it have to be in public.
There are quite a few people on here who know my real name and background BTW although not most obvs
IIRC - I was just a mere lurker - the reprehensible ex poster Sean got peeved when Tim kinda doxxed Sean by referring to a photo of his home on another social medium, so Sean wrought modest revenge by linking to a news item about tim’s wife
All rather childish in retrospect. But the big time doxxing was done by Plato when she linked to Tim’s address with a Google image of his actual house in Liverpool, or something like that
The lesson we all learned was Do Not Doxx. A good lesson, surely
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Alternatively, the owner of a badly-run business is casting around for a scapegoat.
In fairness, she has personally apologised and said she's let people down.
But, with business failures, there are almost always a range of factors that come together, and it isn't totally unreasonable to say that increases in interest rates in 2022 made it more difficult to borrow the money required to keep afloat. That's a consequence of interest rate rises. It's hardly a controversial point - it's an unavoidable fact of life.
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
No it was definitely Plato. At the time Tim was being called out on all the BS backstories he was coming up with and Plato put 2+2 together of publicly available information and posted it all on here.
tim not Tim
I thought it was a Poster called Sean Thomas that doxed tim
Neither of them post now! I logged on the next morning and the former had been banned but as i wasnt on the night before i could be wrong.
Can you dox people by asking the site via a PM or does it have to be in public.
There are quite a few people on here who know my real name and background BTW although not most obvs
IIRC - I was just a mere lurker - the reprehensible ex poster Sean got peeved when Tim kinda doxxed Sean by referring to a photo of his home on another social medium, so Sean wrought modest revenge by linking to a news item about tim’s wife
All rather childish in retrospect. But the big time doxxing was done by Plato when she linked to Tim’s address with a Google image of his actual house in Liverpool, or something like that
The lesson we all learned was Do Not Doxx. A good lesson, surely
Nottinghamshire Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) the day after the attacks.
The IOPC investigation will look at whether the actions of Calocane, of no fixed abode, were influenced by the presence of a police car that was following him.
The IOPC said an officer driving the single-crewed vehicle had sight of the suspect driving the van for less than a minute before it hit pedestrians.
We have spoken this before on here, but Plato was a casebook example of internet + social media + life issues leads people down some crazy rabbit holes.
I remember that people from different political backgrounds met her IRL before the craziness and that perfectly pleasant. Fast forward just a few years and it was QAnon conspiracy stuff.
There was a photo posted in a Loughborough Facebook group of a recent ring around the moon, caused by ice crystals in the atmosphere. It degenerated into a conspiracy theory mess, full of flat earth, antivax, fake moonlanding/space is not real, chemtrail, you can't go to Antarctica because NASA won't allow it ....... I was surprised at how many people I recognised who are nuts.
It was quite striking. I failed to take a decent photo though - turns out my photographic knowledge / ability to drive my camera to do what I needed it to wasn’t up to the task, plus you really need a wide angle lens to get both the ring & some scenery in shot.
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
No it was definitely Plato. At the time Tim was being called out on all the BS backstories he was coming up with and Plato put 2+2 together of publicly available information and posted it all on here.
tim not Tim
I thought it was a Poster called Sean Thomas that doxed tim
Neither of them post now! I logged on the next morning and the former had been banned but as i wasnt on the night before i could be wrong.
Can you dox people by asking the site via a PM or does it have to be in public.
There are quite a few people on here who know my real name and background BTW although not most obvs
IIRC - I was just a mere lurker - the reprehensible ex poster Sean got peeved when Tim kinda doxxed Sean by referring to a photo of his home on another social medium, so Sean wrought modest revenge by linking to a news item about tim’s wife
All rather childish in retrospect. But the big time doxxing was done by Plato when she linked to Tim’s address with a Google image of his actual house in Liverpool, or something like that
The lesson we all learned was Do Not Doxx. A good lesson, surely
As an aside, why is it doxx and not dox?
I’ve actually no idea, and I’ve seen it spelt both ways. I prefer doxx as it looks pornier
“The term “doxxing” comes from online hacker disputes in the 1990s, when “dropping docs” referred to revealing a rival’s identity. Since then, the tactic has evolved from the term “docs” to the more familiar “dox.”
Originally, the term was used to reveal hidden online identities. Today, doxxing extends beyond the hacker community and affects many who reveal their real names online, especially the vast content on social media like Twitter and Facebook.”
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
No it was definitely Plato. At the time Tim was being called out on all the BS backstories he was coming up with and Plato put 2+2 together of publicly available information and posted it all on here.
tim not Tim
I thought it was a Poster called Sean Thomas that doxed tim
Neither of them post now! I logged on the next morning and the former had been banned but as i wasnt on the night before i could be wrong.
Can you dox people by asking the site via a PM or does it have to be in public.
There are quite a few people on here who know my real name and background BTW although not most obvs
IIRC - I was just a mere lurker - the reprehensible ex poster Sean got peeved when Tim kinda doxxed Sean by referring to a photo of his home on another social medium, so Sean wrought modest revenge by linking to a news item about tim’s wife
All rather childish in retrospect. But the big time doxxing was done by Plato when she linked to Tim’s address with a Google image of his actual house in Liverpool, or something like that
The lesson we all learned was Do Not Doxx. A good lesson, surely
Tim did revel in making obnoxious comments to people (including Plato).
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
No political system is perfect. I dare you to name one. But recent history teaches us that democratic constitutional monarchy is probably the least imperfect
True power is exercised by the people via their elected tribunes. As it should be. But the monarchy embodies the ceremonial aspect and is usefully above the politicians - so it can steer and advise and - most importantly - act as a source of stability in times of trouble
Thailand - where I am now - is a great example of that. Democratic Thai politics is corrupt, vivid, angry, and sometimes ceases altogether with periods of military rule. How come Thailand doesn’t sink into civil war like so many countries in the region?
The monarchy
That doesn't make sense. It doesn't follow logical rules. You pick an example that fits your conclusion and ignore any that didn't. Even if there weren't any, and there are, it still isn't logical. It is like saying I have a yellow jelly baby therefore all jelly babies are yellow.
Another brilliant intervention illumined by a dazzling analogy
You should start a substack
Thank you. Appreciated. I'm always here when you post nonsense.
Actually your post had merit, ruined by irrationality that shouldn't be possible from someone with such a high IQ.
Now if you want to see a good response to my post I direct you to @david_herdson who gave a sensible reply rather than sarcastic tripe.
I think it was actually a long-forgotten poster called EdP, though Plato joined in and used the information he provided to post a Google Earth link to tim's house.
No it was definitely Plato. At the time Tim was being called out on all the BS backstories he was coming up with and Plato put 2+2 together of publicly available information and posted it all on here.
tim not Tim
I thought it was a Poster called Sean Thomas that doxed tim
Neither of them post now! I logged on the next morning and the former had been banned but as i wasnt on the night before i could be wrong.
Can you dox people by asking the site via a PM or does it have to be in public.
There are quite a few people on here who know my real name and background BTW although not most obvs
IIRC - I was just a mere lurker - the reprehensible ex poster Sean got peeved when Tim kinda doxxed Sean by referring to a photo of his home on another social medium, so Sean wrought modest revenge by linking to a news item about tim’s wife
All rather childish in retrospect. But the big time doxxing was done by Plato when she linked to Tim’s address with a Google image of his actual house in Liverpool, or something like that
The lesson we all learned was Do Not Doxx. A good lesson, surely
Tim did revel in making obnoxious comments to people (including Plato).
Yes, he was a bit too nasty for his own good
Which is a shame as he could be brilliantly funny, and he also essayed acute political insights (even if I disagreed with his political POV)
Nottinghamshire Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) the day after the attacks.
The IOPC investigation will look at whether the actions of Calocane, of no fixed abode, were influenced by the presence of a police car that was following him.
The IOPC said an officer driving the single-crewed vehicle had sight of the suspect driving the van for less than a minute before it hit pedestrians.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Yay! Another victory for "set the markets free" Trussism.
More a victory for “I was running this perfectly sound business, when suddenly the insane debt leveraging that I’d engineered blew up in my face. Who could have seen that coming?”
To me it borders on the criminal when companies undertake such approaches.
I find it strange that a stress test isn’t part of the audit for large concerns.
I'm not at all sure it should. These aren't deposit taking institutions, and their survival isn't crucial for overall financial stability. Businesses take risks, some take more risks than others, and both institutional lenders and investors just need to assess that for themselves.
Nottinghamshire Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) the day after the attacks.
The IOPC investigation will look at whether the actions of Calocane, of no fixed abode, were influenced by the presence of a police car that was following him.
The IOPC said an officer driving the single-crewed vehicle had sight of the suspect driving the van for less than a minute before it hit pedestrians.
The second might there could be some merit to investigating (it still seems like BS to me), but the first one, driving around early hours of the morning, knife in hand....its was the plod that made me do it, what crash, well yes, and the 6 innocent people that I then stabbed, all cos the fuzz were tailing me.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Yay! Another victory for "set the markets free" Trussism.
Except it utter BS. She is solely responsible for Wilko going from a solid business to busto by taking £100 millions out of the business and Wilko being overtaken by their rivals.
True to a degree, but we have lost another mainstay of the High St, at least round my way.
I think there will be a lot of other firms that have staggered on for years on cheap debt go bust after Christmas. Poor sales and high re-financing costs will be the final nail in their coffins.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Yay! Another victory for "set the markets free" Trussism.
More a victory for “I was running this perfectly sound business, when suddenly the insane debt leveraging that I’d engineered blew up in my face. Who could have seen that coming?”
To me it borders on the criminal when companies undertake such approaches.
I find it strange that a stress test isn’t part of the audit for large concerns.
I'm not at all sure it should. These aren't deposit taking institutions, and their survival isn't crucial for overall financial stability. Businesses take risks, some take more risks than others, and both institutional lenders and investors just need to assess that for themselves.
From the point of view of suppliers…
The audit is supposed to tell people about the stability and viability of the business.
On the subject of people with idiosyncratic views, there's an independent running for Mayor of North Yorkshire called Keith Tordoff MBE (and boy, is he proud of that gong), worth keeping an eye on. He ran previously for PCC there, winning good double-digit shares of the vote and spending £10ks on his campaign.
The reason I mention him isn't because I expect him to win - he has a superficial appeal to those only vaguely paying attention which can matter in mayoral campaigns but he's poor at taking good advice and while he has money, he'll spend it badly - but as a measure of how far a full-on conspiracy-theory Trumpite candidate can get.
You wouldn't know how batty his ideas are from his website (even allowing for his free chickens policy)
but he does give full vent on his Twitter account.
He was formerly the selected Yorkshire Party candidate before we rapidly dumped him, not having done as much by way of background checks as we should have.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Yay! Another victory for "set the markets free" Trussism.
Except it utter BS. She is solely responsible for Wilko going from a solid business to busto by taking £100 millions out of the business and Wilko being overtaken by their rivals.
True to a degree, but we have lost another mainstay of the High St, at least round my way.
I think there will be a lot of other firms that have staggered on for years on cheap debt go bust after Christmas. Poor sales and high re-financing costs will be the final nail in their coffins.
Not a great backdrop to a spring election.
There are a number of things going on here.
The number of "ghost" companies is really large both here and US, COVID relief is part of the reason, and all the way back to 2008, when governments also did what they could to ensure minimum number of companies went bust. Low interest rates have kept the wolf from the door. What is left is significant number of businesses that don't make money, they don't really have any route to make number and just hang on bouncing from crisis to crisis. The old saying about finding out who is naked when the tide goes out.
In combination we have the issue with the high street / physical retail. Business rates, leases, cost of staffing, parking costs vs convenience of online. Nobody seems to really have a solution to this problem.
In Wilkinson's case, they did have a solid business being basically the new Woolies. But along have come competition and they haven't adapted and also continued to take money out of the company even when profiting were on the slide.
Has the weaselly little shit said whether he's part of that body of judgment?
Leaving aside the "weaselly little shit" bit, it's slightly sad to see Gove reduced to this. I don't approve of him or his policies but I think he was better than the times he found himself in, and one of the problems with the present lobotomised Conservative Party is that they have no real place for him
I don't agree.
From my civil servant days there were roughly three types of minister:
- those who were experienced in their subject, knew what they wanted to do and set about doing it. These were once common, but are now vanishingly rare. They can be very demanding and even rude, but overall you don't mind it because they are intellectually challenging and great to work with. - those who only cared about publicity, ignored policy debates and left everything to civil servants. These are much more common. Grant Shapps and Matt Hancock are examples of this type. They are OK. - those who thought they knew everything better than any experts and would make stypid decisions because they didn't. That's the most dangerous type. Gordon Brown is perhaps the classic example, Ed Miliband another.
[There's also meant to be a fourth kind, those who aren't up to the job, know it, and are just mouthpieces of their civil servants. I never worked for any of those though].
Gove is very much the ignoramus know-it-all type. He has terrible judgement and unfortunately seems to think he is a genius, or at least can come out with the correct answer once given all the facts, and beat those who have been working in the area for decades. Which is about as dangerous a combination as you can get in a decision-maker.
Nottinghamshire Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) the day after the attacks.
The IOPC investigation will look at whether the actions of Calocane, of no fixed abode, were influenced by the presence of a police car that was following him.
The IOPC said an officer driving the single-crewed vehicle had sight of the suspect driving the van for less than a minute before it hit pedestrians.
The second might there could be some merit to investigating (it still seems like BS to me), but the first one, driving around early hours of the morning, knife in hand....its was the plod that made me do it, what crash, well yes, and the 6 innocent people that I then stabbed, all cos the fuzz were tailing me.
I think there may be value in both investigations, but only if the officers are exonerated.
Otherwise it is feeding delusion.
In the Cardiff case, the parents handed the boys the means to play a game of Russian Roulette, which they subsequently lost. And are blaming the police rather than looking in the mirror.
The really concerning factor for me is the self-delusion of the parents.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
I have just received the following private message via the site: I am asking my lawyers to write to the site owners to get your details over you calling me an Anti Semite.
Post a withdrawal or prepare for very expensive legal action
Obviously I can't be bothered with this, and in any case do not wish to cause trouble for the site admins.
Apropos of nothing, I would like to withdraw the accusation that @bigjohnowls is an anti-semite, and apologise to him for any distress caused.
However, i would like to add that I was at the march on Sunday, and based on what I saw and what has been reported, I think his characterisation of it as "Hate march in favour of genocide and killing babies" to be nothing short of morally reprehensible.
You can call me an anti-semite if that helps. I don't give a fuck.
Me too. I don’t give a fuck either
Well that's bollocks. You accused me of calling you an anti-Semite (which I didn't). And you went f***in' apeshit.
Nottinghamshire Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) the day after the attacks.
The IOPC investigation will look at whether the actions of Calocane, of no fixed abode, were influenced by the presence of a police car that was following him.
The IOPC said an officer driving the single-crewed vehicle had sight of the suspect driving the van for less than a minute before it hit pedestrians.
The second might there could be some merit to investigating (it still seems like BS to me), but the first one, driving around early hours of the morning, knife in hand....its was the plod that made me do it, what crash, well yes, and the 6 innocent people that I then stabbed, all cos the fuzz were tailing me.
I think there may be value in both investigations, but only if the officers are exonerated.
Otherwise it is feeding delusion.
In the Cardiff case, the parents handed the boys the means to play a game of Russian Roulette, which they subsequently lost. And are blaming the police rather than looking in the mirror.
The really concerning factor for me is the self-delusion of the parents.
That e-bike model is particularly insane. Its about as far away from the electronic version of a lawn-mower powered scooter as you can get. The law (and people's understanding) hasn't really kept up with the technology.
On the subject of people with idiosyncratic views, there's an independent running for Mayor of North Yorkshire called Keith Tordoff MBE (and boy, is he proud of that gong), worth keeping an eye on. He ran previously for PCC there, winning good double-digit shares of the vote and spending £10ks on his campaign.
The reason I mention him isn't because I expect him to win - he has a superficial appeal to those only vaguely paying attention which can matter in mayoral campaigns but he's poor at taking good advice and while he has money, he'll spend it badly - but as a measure of how far a full-on conspiracy-theory Trumpite candidate can get.
You wouldn't know how batty his ideas are from his website (even allowing for his free chickens policy)
but he does give full vent on his Twitter account.
He was formerly the selected Yorkshire Party candidate before we rapidly dumped him, not having done as much by way of background checks as we should have.
Long years ago there was a candidate for the governing body of my professional body who would, were he still about, be called Trumpite. He got elected, and I’m a bit ashamed to recall that I was one of his voters. I thought, in my youthful innocence, that he might provide a breath of fresh air. No great harm was done because after a couple of years he was done for some serious professional misconduct and struck off. But it’s very tempting to vote for a ‘radical ’! Especially for the relatively innocent.
Has the weaselly little shit said whether he's part of that body of judgment?
Leaving aside the "weaselly little shit" bit, it's slightly sad to see Gove reduced to this. I don't approve of him or his policies but I think he was better than the times he found himself in, and one of the problems with the present lobotomised Conservative Party is that they have no real place for him
I don't agree.
From my civil servant days there were roughly three types of minister:
- those who were experienced in their subject, knew what they wanted to do and set about doing it. These were once common, but are now vanishingly rare. They can be very demanding and even rude, but overall you don't mind it because they are intellectually challenging and great to work with. - those who only cared about publicity, ignored policy debates and left everything to civil servants. These are much more common. Grant Shapps and Matt Hancock are examples of this type. They are OK. - those who thought they knew everything better than any experts and would make stypid decisions because they didn't. That's the most dangerous type. Gordon Brown is perhaps the classic example, Ed Miliband another.
[There's also meant to be a fourth kind, those who aren't up to the job, know it, and are just mouthpieces of their civil servants. I never worked for any of those though].
Gove is very much the ignoramus know-it-all type. He has terrible judgement and unfortunately seems to think he is a genius, or at least can come out with the correct answer once given all the facts, and beat those who have been working in the area for decades. Which is about as dangerous a combination as you can get in a decision-maker.
Has the weaselly little shit said whether he's part of that body of judgment?
Leaving aside the "weaselly little shit" bit, it's slightly sad to see Gove reduced to this. I don't approve of him or his policies but I think he was better than the times he found himself in, and one of the problems with the present lobotomised Conservative Party is that they have no real place for him
I don't agree.
From my civil servant days there were roughly three types of minister:
- those who were experienced in their subject, knew what they wanted to do and set about doing it. These were once common, but are now vanishingly rare. They can be very demanding and even rude, but overall you don't mind it because they are intellectually challenging and great to work with. - those who only cared about publicity, ignored policy debates and left everything to civil servants. These are much more common. Grant Shapps and Matt Hancock are examples of this type. They are OK. - those who thought they knew everything better than any experts and would make stypid decisions because they didn't. That's the most dangerous type. Gordon Brown is perhaps the classic example, Ed Miliband another.
[There's also meant to be a fourth kind, those who aren't up to the job, know it, and are just mouthpieces of their civil servants. I never worked for any of those though].
Gove is very much the ignoramus know-it-all type. He has terrible judgement and unfortunately seems to think he is a genius, or at least can come out with the correct answer once given all the facts, and beat those who have been working in the area for decades. Which is about as dangerous a combination as you can get in a decision-maker.
That seems at odds with the likes of Nick Palmer opinion when Gove was to do with the environment or the law profession....both sectors initially were very hostile to him both for his politics and his reputation for engaging in political fights, but gave him credit for being knowledgeable, understanding and working towards sensible solutions.
"They can be very demanding and even rude, but overall you don't mind it because they are intellectually challenging and great to work with." - Apparently this is now deemed bullying and so not allowed by ministers, and will get you sacked, even if the civil servants are the ones disobeying their bosses requests.
This whole Greek marbles kerfuffle is ridiculous. Makes Sunak seem incredibly petty, but also makes us look ridiculous as a country. Every year we look more diminished on the world stage. Embarrassing stuff.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
I have just received the following private message via the site: I am asking my lawyers to write to the site owners to get your details over you calling me an Anti Semite.
Post a withdrawal or prepare for very expensive legal action
Obviously I can't be bothered with this, and in any case do not wish to cause trouble for the site admins.
Apropos of nothing, I would like to withdraw the accusation that @bigjohnowls is an anti-semite, and apologise to him for any distress caused.
However, i would like to add that I was at the march on Sunday, and based on what I saw and what has been reported, I think his characterisation of it as "Hate march in favour of genocide and killing babies" to be nothing short of morally reprehensible.
You can call me an anti-semite if that helps. I don't give a fuck.
Me too. I don’t give a fuck either
Well that's bollocks. You accused me of calling you an anti-Semite (which I didn't). And you went f***in' apeshit.
"Fellow Travellers". Do you remember now?
Stop the press: I can some times be a bit shouty on PB
The point is, did I get lawyered up and start threatening my fellow PB-ers with writs? No
Nottinghamshire Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) the day after the attacks.
The IOPC investigation will look at whether the actions of Calocane, of no fixed abode, were influenced by the presence of a police car that was following him.
The IOPC said an officer driving the single-crewed vehicle had sight of the suspect driving the van for less than a minute before it hit pedestrians.
The second might there could be some merit to investigating (it still seems like BS to me), but the first one, driving around early hours of the morning, knife in hand....its was the plod that made me do it, what crash, well yes, and the 6 innocent people that I then stabbed, all cos the fuzz were tailing me.
I think there may be value in both investigations, but only if the officers are exonerated.
Otherwise it is feeding delusion.
In the Cardiff case, the parents handed the boys the means to play a game of Russian Roulette, which they subsequently lost. And are blaming the police rather than looking in the mirror.
The really concerning factor for me is the self-delusion of the parents.
That e-bike model is particularly insane. Its about as far away from the electronic version of a lawn-mower powered scooter as you can get. The law (and people's understanding) hasn't really kept up with the technology.
Sur Rons have great aftermarket supprt.You need the charmingly named Nuclear 24f controller to override the Sur Ron's stock ECS and pull 300A from the battery. They are as fast as fuck (for a short while) after that. I have had one going over 60mph.
I could make a handsome living tuning e-bikes were I so inclined. The demand is immense.
Re Wilkinsons, if I remember correctly not only did they have insane debt leveraging, they had also already burning through £10s millions of rescue money from other sources (I think 2 lots of £40 million was invested in them) before the narrative that the media will run with is that Truss killed the business.
Was talking to a friend of mine about this last night (he's a teacher at a private school). He was talking about how he and some younger colleagues are having to opt out of long term pension payments to make rent. By allowing landlordism and rent seeking to go out of control, alongside the refusal to build any affordable public housing, a huge number of people in their 30s are just completely buggered. We need a government who wants to break the backs of landlords as much as Thatcher wanted to break the power of unions.
Many private school teachers, especially at the major public schools, get a house rent free as a perk of the job.
Yes we need more affordable housing but then as local elections show there is lots of local Nimby opposition to any building on the greenbelt certainly. We also still need landlords as not everyone can afford to buy and some like the flexibility of renting eg students, the young and unmarried and those on contract work
You don't need landlords to rent houses - if no one lives there, the house still exists. You can either just live in it, or it could be a public asset. Private landlords are just rent seeking leeches.
Has the weaselly little shit said whether he's part of that body of judgment?
Leaving aside the "weaselly little shit" bit, it's slightly sad to see Gove reduced to this. I don't approve of him or his policies but I think he was better than the times he found himself in, and one of the problems with the present lobotomised Conservative Party is that they have no real place for him
No sympathy he is a weaselly little shit and deserves all he gets. Nasty nasty piece of work.
Has the weaselly little shit said whether he's part of that body of judgment?
Leaving aside the "weaselly little shit" bit, it's slightly sad to see Gove reduced to this. I don't approve of him or his policies but I think he was better than the times he found himself in, and one of the problems with the present lobotomised Conservative Party is that they have no real place for him
I don't agree.
From my civil servant days there were roughly three types of minister:
- those who were experienced in their subject, knew what they wanted to do and set about doing it. These were once common, but are now vanishingly rare. They can be very demanding and even rude, but overall you don't mind it because they are intellectually challenging and great to work with. - those who only cared about publicity, ignored policy debates and left everything to civil servants. These are much more common. Grant Shapps and Matt Hancock are examples of this type. They are OK. - those who thought they knew everything better than any experts and would make stypid decisions because they didn't. That's the most dangerous type. Gordon Brown is perhaps the classic example, Ed Miliband another.
[There's also meant to be a fourth kind, those who aren't up to the job, know it, and are just mouthpieces of their civil servants. I never worked for any of those though].
Gove is very much the ignoramus know-it-all type. He has terrible judgement and unfortunately seems to think he is a genius, or at least can come out with the correct answer once given all the facts, and beat those who have been working in the area for decades. Which is about as dangerous a combination as you can get in a decision-maker.
Anyone remember Estelle Morris, who resigned because she felt, and probably was, out of her depth? And, long ago, in the first Wilson administrations, there was Kenneth Robinson, who only ever wanted to be Minister of Health, and, as I recall did the job well.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam NEW 🚨 Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
Yay! Another victory for "set the markets free" Trussism.
Except it utter BS. She is solely responsible for Wilko going from a solid business to busto by taking £100 millions out of the business and Wilko being overtaken by their rivals.
If the modest increase in interest rates was enough to make the difference between the loan being affordable or not it suggests Wilko were already a zombie business dependent upon very cheap money to continue in existence.
Such businesses tie up capital, skills, labour and property which would be better deployed elsewhere. It’s a well recognised problem when interest rates are too low for too long.
This whole Greek marbles kerfuffle is ridiculous. Makes Sunak seem incredibly petty, but also makes us look ridiculous as a country. Every year we look more diminished on the world stage. Embarrassing stuff.
It would not be astonishing if Sunak has done this petty thing at just the period of time when a good number of UK traditionalists are beginning to think: "That was then and this is now, things change" and that returning them to our Greek friends would be a genuinely historic and cultural advance in being civilized.
Comments
So you think the inevitable consequence of ending the illegal siege of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the West Bank, investigating the crimes of Hamas and the Israeli state and holding any individuals account, the allowing of Palestinian civilians to go back to their homes and participate in a single secular society, with a state body politic and constitution aimed at secular multi-ethnic control is impossible because the Palestinian Arab population would automatically use that as an opportunity to do another Holocaust? And you also believe that if that is true, I am in favour of that?
I don't need you to sign off on my interest in the welfare of Jewish people - I've written here about looking into my own grandfather's family history of displacement across Russia and Eastern Europe, of talking to Jewish friends and family about these issues, of literally marching against anti-fascists with Jewish bloc. I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing, the obsession with Soros, the attacks on Ed Miliband, and the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. How "anti-wokeness" is just a recooking of Judaeo-Bolshevism and that, when you look at violence against Jewish people prior to October 7th, the vast majority of it was by right wingers who believed that Jewish people were the tools of the left. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I care about the welfare of Jewish people, comrades or otherwise, and that not being a Zionist does not hinder that.
Liberal mixed market social democracies have the lowest levels of barriers to participation in politics and the highest levels of distribution of power.
In the US, for example, community activist politics is a thriving space. Which creates some interesting effects at national level.
That's just not true. Pro-Israeli states asking Israel to do less war crimes is not the same as them allowing the neighbouring Middle Eastern countries to declare a war of annihilation on Israel. And none of those states have the means of doing that in a way that would satisfy them - at best Israel, the US and coalition of other countries would carpet bomb them; at worst Israel and the US would nuke them. Outside of extremely desperate people and terrorists (which are not mutually exclusive groups), the threat of violence to Israel from outside actors is minimal.
Again, if it was likely to happen - why did more local states not use October 7th as an opportunity to attack whilst Israel was clearly distracted and weakened? Why did Egypt warn Israel that an attack by Hamas was being planned. Why were other Middle Eastern nations normalising relations with Israel if they're just waiting for a moment to strike and wipe them off the map? It isn't 1973 any more, the politics have moved on.
I am asking my lawyers to write to the site owners to get your details over you calling me an Anti Semite.
Post a withdrawal or prepare for very expensive legal action
Obviously I can't be bothered with this, and in any case do not wish to cause trouble for the site admins.
Apropos of nothing, I would like to withdraw the accusation that @bigjohnowls is an anti-semite, and apologise to him for any distress caused.
However, i would like to add that I was at the march on Sunday, and based on what I saw and what has been reported, I think his characterisation of it as "Hate march in favour of genocide and killing babies" to be nothing short of morally reprehensible.
And the point is: you said a proposed Nazi plan to kill off the Jews was the way forward for the Jews pre-1939. You may want to think about that a little. (And it also does not count for the views of the people who lived in Madagascar at the time...)
"I've also written here about the increase in anti-Semitism pouring out of the international right wing,"
Right wing anti-Semitism is utterly wrong. Hopefully everyone on here would agree with that.
But so is left-wing anti-Semtiism. It isn't better, or softer, or fluffier, just because it has your favoured political colouring. It's wrong.
So why do you not mention the increase in anti-Smitism on the left? E.g. Corbyn and his fellow travellers?
You may think you care about Jewish people; you may even believe you do; but there's f-all sign of it on here.
You should start a substack
That is, if Israel faced being over run, they would retaliate with nuclear weapons against all states they were currently at war with and their backers. They explicitly included the Soviet Union in the later category.
Because of the geography of Egypt (Aswan dam) a couple of warheads would wipe out Egypt completely. Even the performative “eternal war with Israel” thing became a lethal option.
That’s grounds for banning. That should not happen in our pub
There aren’t many rules on PB but there are a few and they keep the site generally civil and much more fun than 97% of forums
Another unwritten rule is, surely, don’t send private messages threatening legal action. FFS - it’s like inviting the cops into our pub to collar @HYUFD for wanting to invade Scotland
Not impressed
Don't pretend you care about Jews. In fact, don't pretend you care about Palestinians, either - at least, the non-Hamas ones.
Israel has spent the last few decades striving to get peace deals with neighbouring states - the prospect of one with Saudi is alleged to have caused Hamas' atrocity in October. Israel wants peace, and this is to its credit. What is more, it has traded for peace: giving the Sinai back to Egypt for instance, or leaving Gaza in 2006.
But some states - especially Iran - do not. Fortunately Iran does not border Israel, though Syria does.
Many of the neighbouring states - non-Jewish states, btw - fear the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah more than they do Israel. Again, you might want to ask yourself why.
Faisal Islam
@faisalislam
NEW 🚨
Wilko former family owner Lisa Wilkinson reveals to MPs that the previously debt free, furlough avoiding family business was in the middle of negotiating a secured loan from
Macquarie Bank when the 2022 mini budget hit “hiking interest massively” making loan “infeasible”.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1729462508656750934
(said in jest...)
I mean Leon!
I have talked about left wing anti-Semitism, and where I think that it is conflated with left wing anti-Zionism, and where I think it is clearly wrong. I think left wing anti-Semitism comes from the conflation of "capitalist" with "Jewish" - an incorrect conflation and, unfortunately, one people who claim to be fighting anti-Semitism make (with Labour politicians arguing that "criticisms of capitalism are inherently anti-Semitic"). Anti-Semitism on the left is the "socialism of fools".
I think that there were anti-Semites in the Labour party, as there are likely in all political parties and all facets of British life because anti-Semitism has been rife in our culture since Christian conversion if not before, but that much of the claims of anti-Semitism aimed at Corbyn were, again, not done so out of a sincere concern for Jewish people but to make anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism and to make Corbyn into a monster he wasn't. Internal reports by people within the Labour Party have accepted that the complaints process to deal with anti-Semitism was specifically sabotaged by anti-Corbyn Labour staff to help add fuel to this fire.
Do I think Corbyn was the messiah? No. Do I think he was bad at dealing with this issue as a politician? Yes. Do I think he fell into the "socialism of fools" trap? Sometimes (the mural being one of the worst offending examples). Do I think that Corbyn would have enacted policies or encouraged behaviour specifically aimed at oppressing Jewish people, as many journalists and politicians tries to suggest? Of course not.
Also - anti-Semitism on the left has not been linked to the increase of violence against Jewish people; anti-Semitism on the right has.
Needless to say, I haven't received any letters from Cotbyn's learned friends.
So I'll happily still call Corbyn an anti-Semite. Mainly because in my opinion he is.
Whilst I desperately wish it could all be settled peacefully, it's not looking good, so I generally couldn't give a toss about it as performative bleating on here achieves nowt.
BJO, you need to grow the fuck up. Everybody else, calm down.
I am not “Sean” but it appears like you might be the twat that involved the mods with a threat of legal action
If it was, have a word with yourself, then apologise to all
Tackling your last line: evidence, please? for some counter-evidence:
https://theconversation.com/antisemitism-has-moved-from-the-right-to-the-left-in-the-us-and-falls-back-on-long-standing-stereotypes-215760
Besides, as has often been said, extreme left and right are remarkably similar. And both need little excuse to bash the Jews.
The spike in islamophobic racist incidents probably is.
Who doxed Tim?
Can anyone remember?
it was @Plato, IIRC
Apparently they also got very lazy in following trends and sourcing of goods, where as B&M, the Range etc have overtaken them to be the best at securing on-trend items at the cheapest prices.
He badly needs a guide or a ChatGPT summary...
Cant believe that didnt make the front pages sounds an awful case of Antisemitism
They both certainly had their highlights on here
I remember that people from different political backgrounds met her IRL before the craziness and that perfectly pleasant. Fast forward just a few years and it was QAnon conspiracy stuff.
In particular the left allies itself with anyone it thinks is powerless, regardless of any of that entity's other failings.
The left championed Israel in its early years of existence as it was perceived to be weak and now champions Hamas for the same reasons.
Nanos Research:
Con 41%
Lib 22%
NDP 22%
BQ 6%
Green 6%
PPC 2%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election#Pre-campaign_period
TUT
From everyone's friends at Carter-Fuck:
https://www.carter-ruck.com/expertise/reputation-media-privacy/defamation/
What is defamation: "Defamation is the publication to one or more third parties of a statement about you which has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to your reputation. The defamatory publication will either be a libel or (less commonly) a slander (see below)."
What if I am not named?: You may still be able to bring a claim for libel or slander as long as you are identifiable to a sufficient number of people who would have seen or read the publication in question and understood it to refer to you.
What defences are available in defamation claims?
4 defences - Truth, Honest Opinion, Public Interest, Privilege
So BJO vs Endilion has two basic barriers:
1. Who the actual is @bigjohnowls? Is he a definable person with a name and reputation which can be identified by the public? I have doxxed myself and will do so more often in 2024, but has Mr Owls? A name? Am address? A reputation previously established and understood as being BJO on here?
Its pretty hard to argue that your reputation has been publicly defamed when you are an anonymous user ID. BJO would need to demonstrate that we all know who he is and that the public all know who he is so that the people "who would have seen or read the publication in question and understood it to refer to you."
2. Honest Opinion. It is an absolute principle of our legal system that people are not restricted from having opinions about public figures based on what that figure says and does.
So the defence is "if the publisher can show that what they published was a statement of opinion" - this is a debate board so everything here is opinion; "that the statement complained of indicated the basis of that opinion; and that an honest person could have held the opinion based on any fact which existed at the time the statement was made." To demonstrate the basis for said honest opinion, everything said by the complainant is evidence. And an awful lot has been said. The complainant would need to show "that the defendant did in fact not hold the opinion."
Methinks an Arkell vs Pressdram response is appropriate.
Neither of them post now! I logged on the next morning and the former had been banned but as i wasnt on the night before i could be wrong.
Can you dox people by asking the site via a PM or does it have to be in public.
There are quite a few people on here who know my real name and background BTW although not most obvs
And then she went and died leaving me all guilty. A lesson. RIP Plato
All rather childish in retrospect. But the big time doxxing was done by Plato when she linked to Tim’s address with a Google image of his actual house in Liverpool, or something like that
The lesson we all learned was Do Not Doxx. A good lesson, surely
But, with business failures, there are almost always a range of factors that come together, and it isn't totally unreasonable to say that increases in interest rates in 2022 made it more difficult to borrow the money required to keep afloat. That's a consequence of interest rate rises. It's hardly a controversial point - it's an unavoidable fact of life.
Nottinghamshire Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) the day after the attacks.
The IOPC investigation will look at whether the actions of Calocane, of no fixed abode, were influenced by the presence of a police car that was following him.
The IOPC said an officer driving the single-crewed vehicle had sight of the suspect driving the van for less than a minute before it hit pedestrians.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-67552777
The police were behind somebody for a minute, so that caused them to ram some old geezer and stabbed a loads of students. BS.
“The term “doxxing” comes from online hacker disputes in the 1990s, when “dropping docs” referred to revealing a rival’s identity. Since then, the tactic has evolved from the term “docs” to the more familiar “dox.”
Originally, the term was used to reveal hidden online identities. Today, doxxing extends beyond the hacker community and affects many who reveal their real names online, especially the vast content on social media like Twitter and Facebook.”
Actually your post had merit, ruined by irrationality that shouldn't be possible from someone with such a high IQ.
Now if you want to see a good response to my post I direct you to @david_herdson who gave a sensible reply rather than sarcastic tripe.
Which is a shame as he could be brilliantly funny, and he also essayed acute political insights (even if I disagreed with his political POV)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12270879/Cardiff-e-bike-crash-Hundreds-mourners-line-streets-funeral-two-teenagers-killed.html
I think there will be a lot of other firms that have staggered on for years on cheap debt go bust after Christmas. Poor sales and high re-financing costs will be the final nail in their coffins.
Not a great backdrop to a spring election.
The audit is supposed to tell people about the stability and viability of the business.
The reason I mention him isn't because I expect him to win - he has a superficial appeal to those only vaguely paying attention which can matter in mayoral campaigns but he's poor at taking good advice and while he has money, he'll spend it badly - but as a measure of how far a full-on conspiracy-theory Trumpite candidate can get.
You wouldn't know how batty his ideas are from his website (even allowing for his free chickens policy)
https://keithtordoff4mayor.co.uk/
but he does give full vent on his Twitter account.
He was formerly the selected Yorkshire Party candidate before we rapidly dumped him, not having done as much by way of background checks as we should have.
The number of "ghost" companies is really large both here and US, COVID relief is part of the reason, and all the way back to 2008, when governments also did what they could to ensure minimum number of companies went bust. Low interest rates have kept the wolf from the door. What is left is significant number of businesses that don't make money, they don't really have any route to make number and just hang on bouncing from crisis to crisis. The old saying about finding out who is naked when the tide goes out.
In combination we have the issue with the high street / physical retail. Business rates, leases, cost of staffing, parking costs vs convenience of online. Nobody seems to really have a solution to this problem.
In Wilkinson's case, they did have a solid business being basically the new Woolies. But along have come competition and they haven't adapted and also continued to take money out of the company even when profiting were on the slide.
From my civil servant days there were roughly three types of minister:
- those who were experienced in their subject, knew what they wanted to do and set about doing it. These were once common, but are now vanishingly rare. They can be very demanding and even rude, but overall you don't mind it because they are intellectually challenging and great to work with.
- those who only cared about publicity, ignored policy debates and left everything to civil servants. These are much more common. Grant Shapps and Matt Hancock are examples of this type. They are OK.
- those who thought they knew everything better than any experts and would make stypid decisions because they didn't. That's the most dangerous type. Gordon Brown is perhaps the classic example, Ed Miliband another.
[There's also meant to be a fourth kind, those who aren't up to the job, know it, and are just mouthpieces of their civil servants. I never worked for any of those though].
Gove is very much the ignoramus know-it-all type. He has terrible judgement and unfortunately seems to think he is a genius, or at least can come out with the correct answer once given all the facts, and beat those who have been working in the area for decades. Which is about as dangerous a combination as you can get in a decision-maker.
Otherwise it is feeding delusion.
In the Cardiff case, the parents handed the boys the means to play a game of Russian Roulette, which they subsequently lost. And are blaming the police rather than looking in the mirror.
The really concerning factor for me is the self-delusion of the parents.
"Fellow Travellers". Do you remember now?
No great harm was done because after a couple of years he was done for some serious professional misconduct and struck off.
But it’s very tempting to vote for a ‘radical ’! Especially for the relatively innocent.
"They can be very demanding and even rude, but overall you don't mind it because they are intellectually challenging and great to work with." - Apparently this is now deemed bullying and so not allowed by ministers, and will get you sacked, even if the civil servants are the ones disobeying their bosses requests.
The point is, did I get lawyered up and start threatening my fellow PB-ers with writs? No
I could make a handsome living tuning e-bikes were I so inclined. The demand is immense.
Such businesses tie up capital, skills, labour and property which would be better deployed elsewhere. It’s a well recognised problem when interest rates are too low for too long.
I have a spare week en route home to London from the Far East
I fancy a week in India
But where?
I’ve done these places: Mumbai, Agra, Varanasi, Delhi, Gujarat (and the lions), Ranthambore (and the tigers), and Kolkata
The rest is a mystery to me, I need to know more. I’d love to to to the far north - Sikkim or Ladakh but I suspect it’s way too cold in December
Where do people recommend? Goa? Kerala? Darjeeling and all that? Kashmir? Jaipur? I’d like something really quite exotic. I don’t mind a challenge