For anyone over-obsessed with AI (me) a new iteration of an AI image maker has dropped overnight. Midjourney V6
It is another major leap forward - especially for photography
If I may be allowed one single image (and I shall post no more today) - check this photo out. It is completely flawless. Yet entirely fake
This is obviously low res. If you look at the original it just gets better the MORE you zoom in. There are no errors. No weird hands. Nothing to tell you this is not real. And these photos can now be animated into videos and movies. No wonder the Hollywood actors went on strike
It's impressive, but there are often clues. The BBC website has a regular real or AI quiz and generally I get ~70-80% right, at least (occasionally a full house) and I don't think I have any special ability. That's a bit easier as it's all celebs so there's not only the picture but also the likelihood of the image - i.e. whether X is crazy enough to wear that outfit etc.
In this pic, the white rope third from right is weird. The bend looks to be the wrong way - not explained by gravity, could be explained by wind, but the scene is otherwise calm. The light on the deck retainer is also, maybe, slightly off.
Would I think this was fake if flipping through a magazine and seeing this? No, not at all. If asked explicitly whether it was AI or fake then the rope is the tell here, I think. But that doens't really matter - this is perfectly good enough for $expensivewatch or $fancyholiday advertising materials and that's a bit of a problem for people working in that industry. AI image generation is already good enough to replace that.
For the more nefarious purposes, AI plus a bit of manual touch-up probably does the job too. Interesting times.
The ai technology will at any rate need conventional photography to keep going to feed it images to create its own montages with.
For anyone over-obsessed with AI (me) a new iteration of an AI image maker has dropped overnight. Midjourney V6
It is another major leap forward - especially for photography
If I may be allowed one single image (and I shall post no more today) - check this photo out. It is completely flawless. Yet entirely fake
This is obviously low res. If you look at the original it just gets better the MORE you zoom in. There are no errors. No weird hands. Nothing to tell you this is not real. And these photos can now be animated into videos and movies. No wonder the Hollywood actors went on strike
It's impressive, but there are often clues. The BBC website has a regular real or AI quiz and generally I get ~70-80% right, at least (occasionally a full house) and I don't think I have any special ability. That's a bit easier as it's all celebs so there's not only the picture but also the likelihood of the image - i.e. whether X is crazy enough to wear that outfit etc.
In this pic, the white rope third from right is weird. The bend looks to be the wrong way - not explained by gravity, could be explained by wind, but the scene is otherwise calm. The light on the deck retainer is also, maybe, slightly off.
Would I think this was fake if flipping through a magazine and seeing this? No, not at all. If asked explicitly whether it was AI or fake then the rope is the tell here, I think. But that doens't really matter - this is perfectly good enough for $expensivewatch or $fancyholiday advertising materials and that's a bit of a problem for people working in that industry. AI image generation is already good enough to replace that.
For the more nefarious purposes, AI plus a bit of manual touch-up probably does the job too. Interesting times.
The ai technology will at any rate need conventional photography to keep going to feed it images to create its own montages with.
For anyone over-obsessed with AI (me) a new iteration of an AI image maker has dropped overnight. Midjourney V6
It is another major leap forward - especially for photography
If I may be allowed one single image (and I shall post no more today) - check this photo out. It is completely flawless. Yet entirely fake
This is obviously low res. If you look at the original it just gets better the MORE you zoom in. There are no errors. No weird hands. Nothing to tell you this is not real. And these photos can now be animated into videos and movies. No wonder the Hollywood actors went on strike
It's impressive, but there are often clues. The BBC website has a regular real or AI quiz and generally I get ~70-80% right, at least (occasionally a full house) and I don't think I have any special ability. That's a bit easier as it's all celebs so there's not only the picture but also the likelihood of the image - i.e. whether X is crazy enough to wear that outfit etc.
In this pic, the white rope third from right is weird. The bend looks to be the wrong way - not explained by gravity, could be explained by wind, but the scene is otherwise calm. The light on the deck retainer is also, maybe, slightly off.
Would I think this was fake if flipping through a magazine and seeing this? No, not at all. If asked explicitly whether it was AI or fake then the rope is the tell here, I think. But that doens't really matter - this is perfectly good enough for $expensivewatch or $fancyholiday advertising materials and that's a bit of a problem for people working in that industry. AI image generation is already good enough to replace that.
For the more nefarious purposes, AI plus a bit of manual touch-up probably does the job too. Interesting times.
The ai technology will at any rate need conventional photography to keep going to feed it images to create its own montages with.
Inter alia, photography - or what is left of it - is completely finished. Midjourney 6 is simply better at any and every style
Surely the key point is photography shows you a real thing (I appreciate that isn't always completely true with filters, etc). AI shows you a created thing which may be a lot better but isn't real (and artists, special effects people, etc having been doing that for years and it is these jobs that are probably being replaced by AI).
When we see a picture of @IanB2 dog (for scale), it is because it is real that we enjoy it. If Ian superimposed a perfect AI dog on all his pictures it would just be annoying whereas we all go 'Ahhh' because we know it is real (or do we?).
I agree that instead of a photoshoped model on the front of a magazine it will probably be replaced by AI, but AI won't replace your holiday snaps, or Ian's dog, or scenes from a war, or the picture of a volcano erupting. We want to see the real events happening, not a made up image of something that did or didn't happen.
For anyone over-obsessed with AI (me) a new iteration of an AI image maker has dropped overnight. Midjourney V6
It is another major leap forward - especially for photography
If I may be allowed one single image (and I shall post no more today) - check this photo out. It is completely flawless. Yet entirely fake
This is obviously low res. If you look at the original it just gets better the MORE you zoom in. There are no errors. No weird hands. Nothing to tell you this is not real. And these photos can now be animated into videos and movies. No wonder the Hollywood actors went on strike
It's impressive, but there are often clues. The BBC website has a regular real or AI quiz and generally I get ~70-80% right, at least (occasionally a full house) and I don't think I have any special ability. That's a bit easier as it's all celebs so there's not only the picture but also the likelihood of the image - i.e. whether X is crazy enough to wear that outfit etc.
In this pic, the white rope third from right is weird. The bend looks to be the wrong way - not explained by gravity, could be explained by wind, but the scene is otherwise calm. The light on the deck retainer is also, maybe, slightly off.
Would I think this was fake if flipping through a magazine and seeing this? No, not at all. If asked explicitly whether it was AI or fake then the rope is the tell here, I think. But that doens't really matter - this is perfectly good enough for $expensivewatch or $fancyholiday advertising materials and that's a bit of a problem for people working in that industry. AI image generation is already good enough to replace that.
For the more nefarious purposes, AI plus a bit of manual touch-up probably does the job too. Interesting times.
If I was allowed to post AI pics on here I promise I could post 20 - in a minute - which are entirely indistinguishable from reality. But I’m not so I can’t
Go and look on Discord. It’s mind blowing
And it’s not just invented photos. It’s fake images of real people - it’s cartoons and paintings and illustrations - AI has made another quantum leap. Remember that 3 years ago everyone was amazed when ChatGPT drew a cartoon of a dog in a tutu
It's interesting there was opprobrium for Disney when it turned out AI was used for the Secret Invasion intro, and for WotC when some art was apparently made by AI. Pathfinder and others, I think, have stated they'll only use human artists.
Capexit seems like a good idea to me, but would the rest of SA let it go peacefully?
I would not have thought so. Civil war beckons if it happens.
One political route to thwarting it would be an ANC-DA coalition in government but that's a more unlikely coupling than Jacob and Vic on Emmerdale. It can't happen unless both sets of leadership are changed.
Maybe the end of apartheid needed the cleansing flames of conflict to forge the new order instead of Mandela's Handforth Parish Council T&R Commission and the ultimately unsatisfactory constitutional settlement.
For anyone over-obsessed with AI (me) a new iteration of an AI image maker has dropped overnight. Midjourney V6
It is another major leap forward - especially for photography
If I may be allowed one single image (and I shall post no more today) - check this photo out. It is completely flawless. Yet entirely fake
This is obviously low res. If you look at the original it just gets better the MORE you zoom in. There are no errors. No weird hands. Nothing to tell you this is not real. And these photos can now be animated into videos and movies. No wonder the Hollywood actors went on strike
It's impressive, but there are often clues. The BBC website has a regular real or AI quiz and generally I get ~70-80% right, at least (occasionally a full house) and I don't think I have any special ability. That's a bit easier as it's all celebs so there's not only the picture but also the likelihood of the image - i.e. whether X is crazy enough to wear that outfit etc.
In this pic, the white rope third from right is weird. The bend looks to be the wrong way - not explained by gravity, could be explained by wind, but the scene is otherwise calm. The light on the deck retainer is also, maybe, slightly off.
Would I think this was fake if flipping through a magazine and seeing this? No, not at all. If asked explicitly whether it was AI or fake then the rope is the tell here, I think. But that doens't really matter - this is perfectly good enough for $expensivewatch or $fancyholiday advertising materials and that's a bit of a problem for people working in that industry. AI image generation is already good enough to replace that.
For the more nefarious purposes, AI plus a bit of manual touch-up probably does the job too. Interesting times.
The ai technology will at any rate need conventional photography to keep going to feed it images to create its own montages with.
Inter alia, photography - or what is left of it - is completely finished. Midjourney 6 is simply better at any and every style
Surely the key point is photography shows you a real thing (I appreciate that isn't always completely true with filters, etc). AI shows you a created thing which may be a lot better but isn't real (and artists, special effects people, etc having been doing that for years and it is these jobs that are probably being replaced by AI).
When we see a picture of @IanB2 dog (for scale), it is because it is real that we enjoy it. If Ian superimposed a perfect AI dog on all his pictures it would just be annoying whereas we all go 'Ahhh' because we know it is real (or do we?).
I agree that instead of a photoshoped model on the front of a magazine it will probably be replaced by AI, but AI won't replace your holiday snaps, or Ian's dog, or scenes from a war, or the picture of a volcano erupting. We want to see the real events happening, not a made up image of something that did or didn't happen.
Yes domestic photography of friends and family or holidays will survive
What else? I really don’t know. I’ve just seen some war photographs which look entirely real. How will editors know that their photographers aren’t just sitting at home typing prompts?
But this goes beyond that. AI will create photographs and ideas and art we haven’t even conceived - and wait til it gets to videos
If I may be allowed one more. And then that is it, mods, I promise (I have to go Xmas shopping anyway)
Look at this. It’s really beautiful. It reminds me of the best work by Bill Viola - who uses a lot of water. If I knew it was done by him - with days spent with models in pools - I’d say it’s worth $20k for an original limited print
But it was done by Midjourney in 2 minutes. These girls don’t exist. So does that make it worthless and ugly? What is beauty? What is art? Etc etc etc
I was married to a Coloured South African from Cape Town and visited several times, but never strayed beyond the Western Cape. On my final visit a few years ago it was obvious that in Cape Town, at least, things were a lot better than in 1993 when I first went and much better than my previous visit. The DA by then had been in power in the City and Province for long enough to clean things up and it certainly felt a lot safer than on previous visits - the City Centre was no longer a no go zone. It also seemed that newer developments were a bit less fortified than older ones. Lots of moans about the ANC from everyone I spoke to, and I didn't meet any black people socially. But in restaurants there were definitely more black families than in previous visits, apart from our one night out in a very expensive one which had almost entirely non-black clientele.
My wife's family kept referring to violence but as someone for London the overall atmosphere didn't seem wildly different to some of our more dubious districts and of course we gave the Cape Flats and Khayelitsha a wide berth.
But I hear horror stories from Jo'burg and elsewhere and I do wonder if the Western Cape and the rest of the country are very different, and whether that 'Capexit' might be more than a straw in the wind. Unlikely, but I would have said the same about Brexit in 2010.
Do you really think that the government of RSA will allow the most prosperous part of the country to secede?
More likely they go all Spanish on them and ban the DA for inciting separation
In local UK news we’re now 3 days into what will certainly be the most impressive sustained period of wind power dominating the grid to date.
Currently generating 21gw of power from wind, and only 2.6gw from any form of fossil fuel (CCGT).
There were a rash of stories last week about the grid not being able to cope with surges in wind power and the need to switch many of the turbines off as a result. It was alleged that the money wasted (the turbine owners still get paid) was adding £40 onto the average bill.
Given our massive investment in wind this seemed a somewhat suboptimal state of affairs.
Then we need a massive investment in battery (or pumped, or big weights up and down mineshafts) storage.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
V good piece, thank you Dura. South Africa. Never been, never will, but I did have a close shave. A consulting firm I was briefly with wanted to send me to Joberg for a year. Their dastardly plan was thwarted by me resigning.
It's interesting there was opprobrium for Disney when it turned out AI was used for the Secret Invasion intro, and for WotC when some art was apparently made by AI. Pathfinder and others, I think, have stated they'll only use human artists.
Convenience will win out. Like procedural generation.
For anyone over-obsessed with AI (me) a new iteration of an AI image maker has dropped overnight. Midjourney V6
It is another major leap forward - especially for photography
If I may be allowed one single image (and I shall post no more today) - check this photo out. It is completely flawless. Yet entirely fake
This is obviously low res. If you look at the original it just gets better the MORE you zoom in. There are no errors. No weird hands. Nothing to tell you this is not real. And these photos can now be animated into videos and movies. No wonder the Hollywood actors went on strike
It's impressive, but there are often clues. The BBC website has a regular real or AI quiz and generally I get ~70-80% right, at least (occasionally a full house) and I don't think I have any special ability. That's a bit easier as it's all celebs so there's not only the picture but also the likelihood of the image - i.e. whether X is crazy enough to wear that outfit etc.
In this pic, the white rope third from right is weird. The bend looks to be the wrong way - not explained by gravity, could be explained by wind, but the scene is otherwise calm. The light on the deck retainer is also, maybe, slightly off.
Would I think this was fake if flipping through a magazine and seeing this? No, not at all. If asked explicitly whether it was AI or fake then the rope is the tell here, I think. But that doens't really matter - this is perfectly good enough for $expensivewatch or $fancyholiday advertising materials and that's a bit of a problem for people working in that industry. AI image generation is already good enough to replace that.
For the more nefarious purposes, AI plus a bit of manual touch-up probably does the job too. Interesting times.
If I was allowed to post AI pics on here I promise I could post 20 - in a minute - which are entirely indistinguishable from reality. But I’m not so I can’t
Go and look on Discord. It’s mind blowing
And it’s not just invented photos. It’s fake images of real people - it’s cartoons and paintings and illustrations - AI has made another quantum leap. Remember that 3 years ago everyone was amazed when ChatGPT drew a cartoon of a dog in a tutu
Now extrapolate 3 years hence
I had a chat with my son a couple of weeks ago who knows about this stuff (just finishing his Ph.D at Cambridge). He reckons the unknown is whether the advancement continues apace or whether we hit a technological barrier that means we reach a point and stuff slows down again until we overcome that barrier.
He is of the opinion that all jobs that involve sifting through data and re-presenting it or adding to it and producing an outcome are doomed which is most non-physical jobs eg call centres answering questions or coming to a conclusion on the information you give them in conjunction with what they have.
Listening to Hannah Fry on AI is also quite interesting.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
How very appropriate on this thread, that you should diminish the experiences of black South Africans who actually lived through Apartheid.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
“Anne those students are demonstrating to defend the rights of a population who’s constantly getting murdered by a mindless automaton with machine guns for arms!”
“They’re genocidal fascists, Joe. I’m not saying I support 100 percent of the actions of the Child-Killing Murder Robot, but at least it’s not going around college campuses saying things that make people feel uncomfortable.”
“Well call me crazy but I just don’t accept that making people feel uncomfortable is equal to or worse than murdering children by the thousands.”
“You are crazy, Joe. You’re a crazy, hateful man. I’m going to go spend the night at my sister’s. God, I can’t believe I married a Nazi.”
What the fuck are you talking about.
He’s saying that Jewish people are a collective, some kind of hive mind, where they are all responsible and should be collectively punished. It’s almost as if he thinks they don’t deserve the rights enjoyed by all human beings.
Fry has repeatedly expressed opposition to organised religion, and has identified himself as an atheist and humanist, while declaring some sympathy for the ancient Greek belief in gods. In his first autobiography he described how he once considered ordination to the Anglican priesthood, but came to the conclusion that he couldn't believe in God. In 2010, Fry was made a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association, stating: "it is essential to nail one's colours to the mast as a humanist."
So Stephen's finally found his identity. He was a Jew all along. All he needed was a quiet patch professionally and the world to be watching
“Anne those students are demonstrating to defend the rights of a population who’s constantly getting murdered by a mindless automaton with machine guns for arms!”
“They’re genocidal fascists, Joe. I’m not saying I support 100 percent of the actions of the Child-Killing Murder Robot, but at least it’s not going around college campuses saying things that make people feel uncomfortable.”
“Well call me crazy but I just don’t accept that making people feel uncomfortable is equal to or worse than murdering children by the thousands.”
“You are crazy, Joe. You’re a crazy, hateful man. I’m going to go spend the night at my sister’s. God, I can’t believe I married a Nazi.”
What the fuck are you talking about.
He’s saying that Jewish people are a collective, some kind of hive mind, where they are all responsible and should be collectively punished. It’s almost as if he thinks they don’t deserve the rights enjoyed by all human beings.
Ah oh I see.
And very interesting that we have arrived at that point in a thread about South Africa, as @No_Offence_Alan has pointed out.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
When I was there there was a strike or protest over wages by municipal workers (Cape Town).
Around 500 people in their high-viz vests and council clothing were marching with associated banners through the city.
Except they weren't marching. The weren't jogging. They were moving rhythmically forward to a beat which they were singing to also. A gutteral, visceral noise, no doubt demanding nothing more sinister than better "pay 'n conditions". But dear god to this white boy it seemed like Cetshwayo's advancing army.
Trivia point: in my platoon I had a private called Chard who was a direct descendant. Fantastic soldier.
Direct descendant of who?
(And what's an indirect descendent?)
Cetshwayo
An “indirect descendent” means that you have a common ancestor.
It can be used in a ridiculous manner (eg I am an indirect descendent of the King). But it’s more commonly used for nephews and nieces (ie common ancestor in grandparents but not in the direct line)
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
The apartheid bit is the occupied West Bank, where Israeli settlers get all the rights of Israeli citizens, but West Bank Arabs get none.
When I was there there was a strike or protest over wages by municipal workers (Cape Town).
Around 500 people in their high-viz vests and council clothing were marching with associated banners through the city.
Except they weren't marching. The weren't jogging. They were moving rhythmically forward to a beat which they were singing to also. A gutteral, visceral noise, no doubt demanding nothing more sinister than better "pay 'n conditions". But dear god to this white boy it seemed like Cetshwayo's advancing army.
Trivia point: in my platoon I had a private called Chard who was a direct descendant. Fantastic soldier.
Direct descendant of who?
(And what's an indirect descendent?)
Cetshwayo
An “indirect descendent” means that you have a common ancestor.
It can be used in a ridiculous manner (eg I am an indirect descendent of the King). But it’s more commonly used for nephews and nieces (ie common ancestor in grandparents but not in the direct line)
It's notable how many people on here have personal connections to SA.
South Africa must be one of the UK's most neglected and therefore mismanaged foreign relations. There is a lot of potential for mutual aid and synergy there if some imagination and effort were applied.
In local UK news we’re now 3 days into what will certainly be the most impressive sustained period of wind power dominating the grid to date.
Currently generating 21gw of power from wind, and only 2.6gw from any form of fossil fuel (CCGT).
There were a rash of stories last week about the grid not being able to cope with surges in wind power and the need to switch many of the turbines off as a result. It was alleged that the money wasted (the turbine owners still get paid) was adding £40 onto the average bill.
Given our massive investment in wind this seemed a somewhat suboptimal state of affairs.
On topic, there are a lot of individual issues, the most vexing of which is governments allowing wind farms to be built with guaranteed purchase prices, but with insufficient take away capacity to allow wind energy poor regions to benefit. Scotland has a number of particularly terrible examples, where turbines were installed on islands, and where interconnectors are completely insufficient for the power capacity of the farm.
Financially, it has made absolute sense for the Scottish Government to allow Wind Farms to be built in inaccessible areas. The constraint payments (which account for loss of subsidy, and are somehow worth considerably more than actually providing power) make the wind farms very wealthy, and the UK billpayers as a whole foot the bill.
You will not get planning permission for a wind farm, without getting guarantees that interconnects will be built. (And bear in mind that you are now allowed to build your own interconnector, as that is the job of National Grid*)
Among the many problems, though, have been:
(1) Councils rescinding planning permission for interconnectors (2) National Grid dragging their feet (3) National Grid refusing payments from wind developers for interconnects, because that reduced their regulatory asset base and therefore what they are allows to earn in profits
* Yes, I know there are exceptions, but they are usually national security rather than wind related
It's notable how many people on here have personal connections to SA.
South Africa must be one of the UK's most neglected and therefore mismanaged foreign relations. There is a lot of potential for mutual aid and synergy there if some imagination and effort were applied.
Isn’t/wasn’t the problem that there was a post-colonial dislike of the UK amongst the ANC, added to by Thatcher refusing to sanction SA, that however good for both countries a mutually beneficial close relationship would be it would never be acceptable to the ANC.
Similar to India cocking a snook at the UK and turning towards the USSR and making a clear point about their independence by having a somewhat negative relationship with their former colonial masters.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
It's notable how many people on here have personal connections to SA.
South Africa must be one of the UK's most neglected and therefore mismanaged foreign relations. There is a lot of potential for mutual aid and synergy there if some imagination and effort were applied.
I think that is wildly optimistic.
The ANC has little love for the UK. What - other than money - can we offer? And money from China (which covets South Africa's mineral wealth) comes with many fewer strings.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
How very appropriate on this thread, that you should diminish the experiences of black South Africans who actually lived through Apartheid.
I'm not sure that's true. The use of the word "apartheid" to describe a state divided by race and/or religion does not diminish its use in Apartheid-era SA. Although @Roger perhaps should not have capitalized it (cf hoover/Hoover)
There has always been a lot of SA people in London - as @rcs1000 mentions is is now the new black middle class who are leaving.
The society there has produced a crop of good developers (a couple in the team next to mine in the bank) - I think it must be a combination of basic education, a wish to get out, and the fact that if you have some kind of computer, you can teach yourself IT. The tools are nearly all free.
Another thing that seems to have changed is the ambitions. Previously, it was all about getting money together to go back to SA, buy a house and start a business. It's been a while since I heard that. They want to stay anywhere but SA.
I think at this point that the next step of the cycle in South Africa will, indeed be Zimbabwe style expropriation of assets. All the SA people I meet (black and white) assume this.
Which raises an interesting point. When Zimbabwe started expropriating assets, illegally (according to their own Supreme Court), at gun point, the then British government fought tooth and nail to stop the white farmers coming to the UK. Wrong kind of refugees.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
Ah yes, your scurrilous theory that the Left are forever seeking to champion the poor, the dispossessed, the powerless.
There has always been a lot of SA people in London - as @rcs1000 mentions is is now the new black middle class who are leaving.
The society there has produced a crop of good developers (a couple in the team next to mine in the bank) - I think it must be a combination of basic education, a wish to get out, and the fact that if you have some kind of computer, you can teach yourself IT. The tools are nearly all free.
Another thing that seems to have changed is the ambitions. Previously, it was all about getting money together to go back to SA, buy a house and start a business. It's been a while since I heard that. They want to stay anywhere but SA.
I think at this point that the next step of the cycle in South Africa will, indeed be Zimbabwe style expropriation of assets. All the SA people I meet (black and white) assume this.
Which raises an interesting point. When Zimbabwe started expropriating assets, illegally (according to their own Supreme Court), at gun point, the then British government fought tooth and nail to stop the white farmers coming to the UK. Wrong kind of refugees.
That's interesting about the Zimbabweans. What was wrong about them? Their having declared UDI some years before? Which would remove them from the Commonwealth realms' passport privileges, presumably?
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
It's notable how many people on here have personal connections to SA.
South Africa must be one of the UK's most neglected and therefore mismanaged foreign relations. There is a lot of potential for mutual aid and synergy there if some imagination and effort were applied.
I'd say, given the ANC's attitude to the West in general, that it would have to be a post ANC government that might change to the relationship. At the moment, they prefer Russia and China.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
Ah yes, your scurrilous theory that the Left are forever seeking to champion the poor, the dispossessed, the powerless.
Until they achieve what the Left says it wants for them and they stop being poor or dispossessed or powerless. And then they are the enemy. cf working class boys done good in the UK. They are now part of the oppressor class.
I suppose living your life in primary colours and regurgitating leftist orthodoxy is much easier. Especially if you are too scared to form your own opinions about much at all
Vinyl has shown that technological preference isn't always based on convenience.
Also, DnD's apparent desire to have a virtual/AI DM run things (because there's a DM shortage) may be handy or backfire. Actual humans running games can mess things up but also have more interesting responses and ideas.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
I think I saw that written on a banner at the Pride march in Khan Younis the other day.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
Ah yes, your scurrilous theory that the Left are forever seeking to champion the poor, the dispossessed, the powerless.
Until they achieve what the Left says it wants and stop being poor or dispossessed or powerless. And then they are the enemy. cf working class boys done good in the UK. They are now part of the oppressor class.
I suppose living your life in primary colours and regurgitating leftist orthodoxy is much easier. Especially if you are too scared to form your own opinions about much at all
Regurgitating orthodoxy on PB? Unheard of! Or even unherd of[Yes we gettit - Ed]
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
That's utterly deluded. I would much rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
It has come to my attention that the biggest impact of Trump being (potentially) off the ballot in Colorado, is that he won't therefore be a part of the Republican Primary.
Colorado, while only a medium sized state, is a Super Tuesday state. So if Trump is off the ballot, that may - effectively - hand the delegate haul almost entirely to Hayley.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
Should we look forward to commending the Russians at some point, when they make the effort to normalise the lands acquired during the Ukraine war?
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
That's utterly deluded. I would much rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
Thing is, there is no doubt - to me - that what Israel is doing in eg the West Bank is egregious and should stop.
But ponder your statement. Why would you rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
Is it that there are pockets of bigots? The equivalent of, say, the BNP here and there? The odd march of 500 people through the streets? No. It is because Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza institutionally is against LGBTQ rights and thinks nothing of meting out summary justice to LGBTQ people.
Is it any wonder that sometimes Israel thinks fuck it.
More amazingly there are those on this very board who both champion LGBTQ rights and support Hamas.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
It has come to my attention that the biggest impact of Trump being (potentially) off the ballot in Colorado, is that he won't therefore be a part of the Republican Primary.
Colorado, while only a medium sized state, is a Super Tuesday state. So if Trump is off the ballot, that may - effectively - hand the delegate haul almost entirely to Hayley.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
Should we look forward to commending the Russians at some point, when they make the effort to normalise the lands acquired during the Ukraine war?
History is full of people acquiring land through conflict. Whether it's Ukraine or Pontypridd. Or the United States of America.
I'm just saying that some countries just leave it at that.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
That's utterly deluded. I would much rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
That's utterly deluded. I would much rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
Thing is, there is no doubt - to me - that what Israel is doing in eg the West Bank is egregious and should stop.
But ponder your statement. Why would you rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
Is it that there are pockets of bigots? The equivalent of, say, the BNP here and there? The odd march of 500 people through the streets? No. It is because Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza institutionally is against LGBTQ rights and thinks nothing of meting out summary justice to LGBTQ people.
Is it any wonder that sometimes Israel thinks fuck it.
More amazingly there are those on this very board who both champion LGBTQ rights and support Hamas.
I have a theory about this...
Of course, but if you were a Palestinian, and you saw that Abbas has tried to work alongside Israel, and got nothing in return, is it wonder than so many young Palestinians think "fuck it, I'll join Hamas."
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
That's utterly deluded. I would much rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
I'm not sure how you would arrange the experiment. But I'm sure the photographs would be exceptional
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Yes. I don't disagree. The settlers should be removed and the Palestinians given a chance to govern on their own.
Thing is, you know what the definition of madness is, now, don't you.
Suppose you were an Israeli minding his own business in downtown Tel Aviv (does Tel Aviv have a downtown) and you had seen what happened in oh I don't know, say Gaza. What might your view on it all be.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Yes. I don't disagree. The settlers should be removed and the Palestinians given a chance to govern on their own.
Thing is, you know what the definition of madness is, now, don't you.
Suppose you were an Israeli minding his own business in downtown Tel Aviv (does Tel Aviv have a downtown) and you had seen what happened in oh I don't know, say Gaza. What might your view on it all be.
Oh, I have total sympathy with the Israelis in Southern Israel who've been attacked by Hamas. And I believe we should cut their government a lot of slack in recovering the hostages,
But we also need to accept that the current Israeli government has no interest in even reducing settlement building, let alone dismantling or moving settlers, and that therefore a two state solution is not possible. Or even desired by those in power in Israel.
There will therefore continue to be an almost unlimited number of radicalised Palestinians who have every bit as good a reason to be angry as those Israelis.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
How very appropriate on this thread, that you should diminish the experiences of black South Africans who actually lived through Apartheid.
As the ANC have described Israel in those terms as recently as 2021 I doubt many would share your sensitivity.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
That's utterly deluded. I would much rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
Thing is, there is no doubt - to me - that what Israel is doing in eg the West Bank is egregious and should stop.
But ponder your statement. Why would you rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
Is it that there are pockets of bigots? The equivalent of, say, the BNP here and there? The odd march of 500 people through the streets? No. It is because Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza institutionally is against LGBTQ rights and thinks nothing of meting out summary justice to LGBTQ people.
Is it any wonder that sometimes Israel thinks fuck it.
More amazingly there are those on this very board who both champion LGBTQ rights and support Hamas.
I have a theory about this...
Of course, but if you were a Palestinian, and you saw that Abbas has tried to work alongside Israel, and got nothing in return, is it wonder than so many young Palestinians think "fuck it, I'll join Hamas."
Empathy and understanding has to work both ways.
I can tell you that every nation in the planet worked hard in 2005 to make Gaza work. Our very own FO and HMF spent a lot of time in Gaza under the PA helping, training, giving resources. Only to see the people they'd helped, the PA's soldiers, general PA sympathisers dragged along behind tanks and thrown off buildings when Hamas took power.
@Leon was banned (approx 11:00 2023-12-21) for posting AI imagery again.
Naughty step, I suspect. One a day is his quota, and then he went and posted four more in a single image.
One a day is his soi disant quota. Zero a day is his actual quota.
All behaviour is driven by need but it fucking baffled me as to what need is being fulfilled by the burning desire to post off-topic "AI" generated shitposts with manic frequency.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Yes. I don't disagree. The settlers should be removed and the Palestinians given a chance to govern on their own.
Thing is, you know what the definition of madness is, now, don't you.
Suppose you were an Israeli minding his own business in downtown Tel Aviv (does Tel Aviv have a downtown) and you had seen what happened in oh I don't know, say Gaza. What might your view on it all be.
Oh, I have total sympathy with the Israelis in Southern Israel who've been attacked by Hamas. And I believe we should cut their government a lot of slack in recovering the hostages,
But we also need to accept that the current Israeli government has no interest in even reducing settlement building, let alone dismantling or moving settlers, and that therefore a two state solution is not possible. Or even desired by those in power in Israel.
There will therefore continue to be an almost unlimited number of radicalised Palestinians who have every bit as good a reason to be angry as those Israelis.
They did precisely what you say they had no intention of doing. In Gaza. In 2005.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Amazing how despite numerous lessons from history*, nations / ethnic groups / communities still feel that indefinite suppression of other peoples can be a permanent way forward.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
That's utterly deluded. I would much rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
I really don't understand these people one bit.
It's like people who supported communism, despite the fact that they and their families would undoubtedly have been executed, had a communist government ever come to power.
There are people, and Alexander is one, who just want to watch the world burn, and to be burned with it.
It has come to my attention that the biggest impact of Trump being (potentially) off the ballot in Colorado, is that he won't therefore be a part of the Republican Primary.
Colorado, while only a medium sized state, is a Super Tuesday state. So if Trump is off the ballot, that may - effectively - hand the delegate haul almost entirely to Hayley.
Will SCOTUS rule before March 5? If not then I can see an injunction against awarding the GOP delegates
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Amazing how despite numerous lessons from history*, nations / ethnic groups / communities still feel that indefinite suppression of other peoples can be a permanent way forward.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
It worked for the British colonisers in the seventeenth century. And the Spanish for that matter. Plus who invaded Australia. Plus I think Scotland and Wales are pretty much under the thumb right now.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
Ah yes, your scurrilous theory that the Left are forever seeking to champion the poor, the dispossessed, the powerless.
Until they achieve what the Left says it wants for them and they stop being poor or dispossessed or powerless. And then they are the enemy. cf working class boys done good in the UK. They are now part of the oppressor class.
I suppose living your life in primary colours and regurgitating leftist orthodoxy is much easier. Especially if you are too scared to form your own opinions about much at all
Anything except 'Israel Good Palestine Bad' is Leftist Orthodoxy in your eyes, though, isn't it. It's striking because you're not usually to the extreme Right on any particular issue. If you don't mind sharing I'd be interested in how you've arrived at such a strident pro-Israel position and how it remains unshaken even as they lay waste to the entire Gaza Strip. Tesco now (for my sins) but I'll check back later and see if there's something sincere and enlightening on offer.
@Leon was banned (approx 11:00 2023-12-21) for posting AI imagery again.
Naughty step, I suspect. One a day is his quota, and then he went and posted four more in a single image.
One a day is his soi disant quota. Zero a day is his actual quota.
All behaviour is driven by need but it fucking baffled me as to what need is being fulfilled by the burning desire to post off-topic "AI" generated shitposts with manic frequency.
There has always been a lot of SA people in London - as @rcs1000 mentions is is now the new black middle class who are leaving.
The society there has produced a crop of good developers (a couple in the team next to mine in the bank) - I think it must be a combination of basic education, a wish to get out, and the fact that if you have some kind of computer, you can teach yourself IT. The tools are nearly all free.
Another thing that seems to have changed is the ambitions. Previously, it was all about getting money together to go back to SA, buy a house and start a business. It's been a while since I heard that. They want to stay anywhere but SA.
I think at this point that the next step of the cycle in South Africa will, indeed be Zimbabwe style expropriation of assets. All the SA people I meet (black and white) assume this.
Which raises an interesting point. When Zimbabwe started expropriating assets, illegally (according to their own Supreme Court), at gun point, the then British government fought tooth and nail to stop the white farmers coming to the UK. Wrong kind of refugees.
I think anyone with skills or property would be well-advised to get out of South Africa.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
Ah yes, your scurrilous theory that the Left are forever seeking to champion the poor, the dispossessed, the powerless.
Until they achieve what the Left says it wants for them and they stop being poor or dispossessed or powerless. And then they are the enemy. cf working class boys done good in the UK. They are now part of the oppressor class.
I suppose living your life in primary colours and regurgitating leftist orthodoxy is much easier. Especially if you are too scared to form your own opinions about much at all
Anything except 'Israel Good Palestine Bad' is Leftist Orthodoxy in your eyes, though, isn't it. It's striking because you're not usually to the extreme Right on any particular issue. If you don't mind sharing I'd be interested in how you've arrived at such a strident pro-Israel position and how it remains unshaken even as they lay waste to the entire Gaza Strip. Tesco now (for my sins) but I'll check back later and see if there's something sincere and enlightening on offer.
I think @Sean_F sums it up well a couple of posts ago.
Enjoy Tesco's. Your nod to the mores of the working class I'm sure. They still hate you as a class traitor though.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
That's utterly deluded. I would much rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
I'm not sure how you would arrange the experiment. But I'm sure the photographs would be exceptional
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Amazing how despite numerous lessons from history*, nations / ethnic groups / communities still feel that indefinite suppression of other peoples can be a permanent way forward.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
Well, it can be. Ethnic cleansing settles the issue forever.
The alternative is to assimilate the subject people, but that usually requires giving them a stake in the system.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Yes. I don't disagree. The settlers should be removed and the Palestinians given a chance to govern on their own.
Thing is, you know what the definition of madness is, now, don't you.
Suppose you were an Israeli minding his own business in downtown Tel Aviv (does Tel Aviv have a downtown) and you had seen what happened in oh I don't know, say Gaza. What might your view on it all be.
Oh, I have total sympathy with the Israelis in Southern Israel who've been attacked by Hamas. And I believe we should cut their government a lot of slack in recovering the hostages,
But we also need to accept that the current Israeli government has no interest in even reducing settlement building, let alone dismantling or moving settlers, and that therefore a two state solution is not possible. Or even desired by those in power in Israel.
There will therefore continue to be an almost unlimited number of radicalised Palestinians who have every bit as good a reason to be angry as those Israelis.
I don’t think that a two state solution is viable given conflicts over water rights etc.
Far better to hand the West Bank back to Jordan. Add in security guarantees for Israel and stuff the Hashemite’s mouths with gold.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Amazing how despite numerous lessons from history*, nations / ethnic groups / communities still feel that indefinite suppression of other peoples can be a permanent way forward.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
It worked for the British colonisers in the seventeenth century. And the Spanish for that matter. Plus who invaded Australia. Plus I think Scotland and Wales are pretty much under the thumb right now.
To a degree, I suppose.
Although, North & South America and Australia required massive immigrant numbers swamping the original inhabitants coupled with near genocide unwittingly abetted by European diseases.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Amazing how despite numerous lessons from history*, nations / ethnic groups / communities still feel that indefinite suppression of other peoples can be a permanent way forward.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
Well, it can be. Ethnic cleansing settles the issue forever.
The alternative is to assimilate the subject people, but that usually requires giving them a stake in the system.
Perhaps the lesson is that to be successful it needs to be absolute oppression or active integration. The former = ethnic cleansing and is generally frowned upon now of course.
The Norman invasion might be an example of severe oppression short of ethnic cleansing that was never really overthrown, I guess?
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Amazing how despite numerous lessons from history*, nations / ethnic groups / communities still feel that indefinite suppression of other peoples can be a permanent way forward.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
It worked for the British colonisers in the seventeenth century. And the Spanish for that matter. Plus who invaded Australia. Plus I think Scotland and Wales are pretty much under the thumb right now.
To a degree, I suppose.
Although, North & South America and Australia required massive immigrant numbers swamping the original inhabitants coupled with near genocide unwittingly abetted by European diseases.
Sometimes it works (North America) sometimes it doesn't (India).
There is no rule. I am a realpolitikist. I very much disagree with the I want it to be so therefore it shall be so school of geopolitical analysis.
There has always been a lot of SA people in London - as @rcs1000 mentions is is now the new black middle class who are leaving.
The society there has produced a crop of good developers (a couple in the team next to mine in the bank) - I think it must be a combination of basic education, a wish to get out, and the fact that if you have some kind of computer, you can teach yourself IT. The tools are nearly all free.
Another thing that seems to have changed is the ambitions. Previously, it was all about getting money together to go back to SA, buy a house and start a business. It's been a while since I heard that. They want to stay anywhere but SA.
I think at this point that the next step of the cycle in South Africa will, indeed be Zimbabwe style expropriation of assets. All the SA people I meet (black and white) assume this.
Which raises an interesting point. When Zimbabwe started expropriating assets, illegally (according to their own Supreme Court), at gun point, the then British government fought tooth and nail to stop the white farmers coming to the UK. Wrong kind of refugees.
That's interesting about the Zimbabweans. What was wrong about them? Their having declared UDI some years before? Which would remove them from the Commonwealth realms' passport privileges, presumably?
The government at the time went to some lengths to deny entry into the UK. Because the then Labour government assumed, collectively, that all white farmers from Zimbabwe must be racist scum.
The first thing they did was to tell the visa/passport applications unit in Zimbabwe to clamp down on any applications. Any excuse to deny an application.
The unit, which like many of its kind, is staffed with locals, took this to mean all applications. A little time later, after some anguished calls, the supply of Zimbabwean medical staff for the NHS resumed - the local employees hadn't been told/understood that it was just the white applicants who were to be cracked down on.
A secondary element of this comedy was a re-write of the rules for apply for UK residency/passport. One of which was to declare that service in the British military wasn't a "connection with the UK". Quite a few of the Zimbabweans in questions has served in the UK military.
This caused fun, when sometime later, a Gurkha chap with a VC applied to come to the UK. And was denied.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Yes. I don't disagree. The settlers should be removed and the Palestinians given a chance to govern on their own.
Thing is, you know what the definition of madness is, now, don't you.
Suppose you were an Israeli minding his own business in downtown Tel Aviv (does Tel Aviv have a downtown) and you had seen what happened in oh I don't know, say Gaza. What might your view on it all be.
Oh, I have total sympathy with the Israelis in Southern Israel who've been attacked by Hamas. And I believe we should cut their government a lot of slack in recovering the hostages,
But we also need to accept that the current Israeli government has no interest in even reducing settlement building, let alone dismantling or moving settlers, and that therefore a two state solution is not possible. Or even desired by those in power in Israel.
There will therefore continue to be an almost unlimited number of radicalised Palestinians who have every bit as good a reason to be angry as those Israelis.
They did precisely what you say they had no intention of doing. In Gaza. In 2005.
I would be overjoyed if that were to happen. Obviously, I would prefer it if it was not combined with the destruction of the international airport and the blockade of the port. You know, things which make it quite difficult to develop an economy
In the short run, Israel can - I'm sure - ensure a pliant Palestine via superior weapons, blockades and the like.
But that comes with a cost. It comes with the cost of Israel surrendering the moral high ground it has had for so long. The lives of Palestinians born inside Israeli administered Palestine are pretty shit. And while you can put a lot of that down to shitty Palestinian leadership, Israel cannot shirk all responsibility, because Palestine is not self governing.
Would you build a factory in Palestine to make T-Shirts, if you didn't know whether you could export them?
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Amazing how despite numerous lessons from history*, nations / ethnic groups / communities still feel that indefinite suppression of other peoples can be a permanent way forward.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
Well, it can be. Ethnic cleansing settles the issue forever.
The alternative is to assimilate the subject people, but that usually requires giving them a stake in the system.
Perhaps the lesson is that to be successful it needs to be absolute oppression or active integration. The former = ethnic cleansing and is generally frowned upon now of course.
The Norman invasion might be an example of severe oppression short of ethnic cleansing that was never really overthrown, I guess?
The Harrying of the North was arguably ethnic cleansing. Deliberately removing a problem population.
By the simple expedient of telling a mercenary arms to feed/pay itself off the land until all the food was gone. Then winter came....
There has always been a lot of SA people in London - as @rcs1000 mentions is is now the new black middle class who are leaving.
The society there has produced a crop of good developers (a couple in the team next to mine in the bank) - I think it must be a combination of basic education, a wish to get out, and the fact that if you have some kind of computer, you can teach yourself IT. The tools are nearly all free.
Another thing that seems to have changed is the ambitions. Previously, it was all about getting money together to go back to SA, buy a house and start a business. It's been a while since I heard that. They want to stay anywhere but SA.
I think at this point that the next step of the cycle in South Africa will, indeed be Zimbabwe style expropriation of assets. All the SA people I meet (black and white) assume this.
Which raises an interesting point. When Zimbabwe started expropriating assets, illegally (according to their own Supreme Court), at gun point, the then British government fought tooth and nail to stop the white farmers coming to the UK. Wrong kind of refugees.
That's interesting about the Zimbabweans. What was wrong about them? Their having declared UDI some years before? Which would remove them from the Commonwealth realms' passport privileges, presumably?
The government at the time went to some lengths to deny entry into the UK. Because the then Labour government assumed, collectively, that all white farmers from Zimbabwe must be racist scum.
The first thing they did was to tell the visa/passport applications unit in Zimbabwe to clamp down on any applications. Any excuse to deny an application.
The unit, which like many of its kind, is staffed with locals, took this to mean all applications. A little time later, after some anguished calls, the supply of Zimbabwean medical staff for the NHS resumed - the local employees hadn't been told/understood that it was just the white applicants who were to be cracked down on.
A secondary element of this comedy was a re-write of the rules for apply for UK residency/passport. One of which was to declare that service in the British military wasn't a "connection with the UK". Quite a few of the Zimbabweans in questions has served in the UK military.
This caused fun, when sometime later, a Gurkha chap with a VC applied to come to the UK. And was denied.
In local UK news we’re now 3 days into what will certainly be the most impressive sustained period of wind power dominating the grid to date.
Currently generating 21gw of power from wind, and only 2.6gw from any form of fossil fuel (CCGT).
There were a rash of stories last week about the grid not being able to cope with surges in wind power and the need to switch many of the turbines off as a result. It was alleged that the money wasted (the turbine owners still get paid) was adding £40 onto the average bill.
Given our massive investment in wind this seemed a somewhat suboptimal state of affairs.
Then we need a massive investment in battery (or pumped, or big weights up and down mineshafts) storage.
The quickest return is on high voltage interconnects.
A European grid with sufficient capacity would cut such losses by a substantial amount, and pay for itself in perhaps half a decade - much quicker than any of the other alternatives. For now, we don't even have a UK wide grid with enough capacity.
Batteries, for now, are too expensive for anything but local, short term storage (and EVs will probably add capacity faster than pure storage projects).
When I was there there was a strike or protest over wages by municipal workers (Cape Town).
Around 500 people in their high-viz vests and council clothing were marching with associated banners through the city.
Except they weren't marching. The weren't jogging. They were moving rhythmically forward to a beat which they were singing to also. A gutteral, visceral noise, no doubt demanding nothing more sinister than better "pay 'n conditions". But dear god to this white boy it seemed like Cetshwayo's advancing army.
Trivia point: in my platoon I had a private called Chard who was a direct descendant. Fantastic soldier.
Direct descendant of who?
(And what's an indirect descendent?)
Cetshwayo
An “indirect descendent” means that you have a common ancestor.
It can be used in a ridiculous manner (eg I am an indirect descendent of the King). But it’s more commonly used for nephews and nieces (ie common ancestor in grandparents but not in the direct line)
The soldier's name was Chard ffs.
Sounds like a good man to have your back. In which campaign was he awarded the FFS?
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As others have said, the view of Israel's regime (the specific target of the quote) operating on apartheid lines has moved from fringe abuse to something that many mainstream people sadly acknowledge as at least arguably true. It's not an opinion that is so outlandish that he shouldn't be allowed to sing.
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
Interesting a) that it was an LGBTQ charity that made the first statement; and b) that the statement was made not two weeks after October 7th. This latter suggests that the charity virtually from the outset had formed its view. The former point of course reiterates the powerful/powerless dynamic that we are living in. And which I have, ahem, much commented upon.
This is quite the statement from the ‘charity’
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
That's utterly deluded. I would much rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
I'm not sure how you would arrange the experiment. But I'm sure the photographs would be exceptional
How about trans Jordan?
I believe she prefers to be called Katie Price these days.
@Leon was banned (approx 11:00 2023-12-21) for posting AI imagery again.
Naughty step, I suspect. One a day is his quota, and then he went and posted four more in a single image.
One a day is his soi disant quota. Zero a day is his actual quota.
All behaviour is driven by need but it fucking baffled me as to what need is being fulfilled by the burning desire to post off-topic "AI" generated shitposts with manic frequency.
He likes to be “the guy” who has spotted something else no one else has
Of course we’ve all spotted it but we don’t talk about it it because there’s not much interesting to say
There has always been a lot of SA people in London - as @rcs1000 mentions is is now the new black middle class who are leaving.
The society there has produced a crop of good developers (a couple in the team next to mine in the bank) - I think it must be a combination of basic education, a wish to get out, and the fact that if you have some kind of computer, you can teach yourself IT. The tools are nearly all free.
Another thing that seems to have changed is the ambitions. Previously, it was all about getting money together to go back to SA, buy a house and start a business. It's been a while since I heard that. They want to stay anywhere but SA.
I think at this point that the next step of the cycle in South Africa will, indeed be Zimbabwe style expropriation of assets. All the SA people I meet (black and white) assume this.
Which raises an interesting point. When Zimbabwe started expropriating assets, illegally (according to their own Supreme Court), at gun point, the then British government fought tooth and nail to stop the white farmers coming to the UK. Wrong kind of refugees.
That's interesting about the Zimbabweans. What was wrong about them? Their having declared UDI some years before? Which would remove them from the Commonwealth realms' passport privileges, presumably?
The government at the time went to some lengths to deny entry into the UK. Because the then Labour government assumed, collectively, that all white farmers from Zimbabwe must be racist scum.
The first thing they did was to tell the visa/passport applications unit in Zimbabwe to clamp down on any applications. Any excuse to deny an application.
The unit, which like many of its kind, is staffed with locals, took this to mean all applications. A little time later, after some anguished calls, the supply of Zimbabwean medical staff for the NHS resumed - the local employees hadn't been told/understood that it was just the white applicants who were to be cracked down on.
A secondary element of this comedy was a re-write of the rules for apply for UK residency/passport. One of which was to declare that service in the British military wasn't a "connection with the UK". Quite a few of the Zimbabweans in questions has served in the UK military.
This caused fun, when sometime later, a Gurkha chap with a VC applied to come to the UK. And was denied.
Thanks!
I had this comedy explained to me by my ex - who worked in immigration law. Apparently for local Zimbabweans, working in the visa/passport application office for the British Embassy is a prized job - good conditions, pay (IIRC they were paying in UK pounds, at least until the ZA government got upset) and considered a high status job.
It looks like the BBC, an institution known for its own issues with anti-semitism, have selected a candidate for Eurovision who seems to flirt with anti semitism.
As there is not the slightest doubt that Israel is an Apartheid State I don't know what the Telegraph is talking about. Do people still read the telegraph. Apart from a half decent film critic the rest seems to be simply manufactured nonsense.
Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. There is a huge amount of doubt as to whether Israel is an apartheid state.
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
While Israel proper is not an apartheid State, the West Bank certainly is.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
What differences are there? Isn't the West Bank governed by the PA.
The PA has some powers, but not a lot. It's like saying "well, you get a vote for your local parish council".
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
Yes the settlements absolutely must stop and should be on the table in any serious negotiation.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
Ummmm:
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Thanks.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
What proportion of people in the West Bank date back from before Israel took it over? 20%?10%? Given young populations, it's going to be far nearer the latter.
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Yes. I don't disagree. The settlers should be removed and the Palestinians given a chance to govern on their own.
Thing is, you know what the definition of madness is, now, don't you.
Suppose you were an Israeli minding his own business in downtown Tel Aviv (does Tel Aviv have a downtown) and you had seen what happened in oh I don't know, say Gaza. What might your view on it all be.
Oh, I have total sympathy with the Israelis in Southern Israel who've been attacked by Hamas. And I believe we should cut their government a lot of slack in recovering the hostages,
But we also need to accept that the current Israeli government has no interest in even reducing settlement building, let alone dismantling or moving settlers, and that therefore a two state solution is not possible. Or even desired by those in power in Israel.
There will therefore continue to be an almost unlimited number of radicalised Palestinians who have every bit as good a reason to be angry as those Israelis.
I don’t think that a two state solution is viable given conflicts over water rights etc.
Far better to hand the West Bank back to Jordan. Add in security guarantees for Israel and stuff the Hashemite’s mouths with gold.
That is a perfectly sensible solution.
It still - however -needs the dismantlement of massive numbers of settlements in the West Bank. And those settlements keep growing, and keep moving further and further inside the West Bank.
And with every person that moves there, and every outpost constructed, it becomes harder for Israel to leave.
It has come to my attention that the biggest impact of Trump being (potentially) off the ballot in Colorado, is that he won't therefore be a part of the Republican Primary.
Colorado, while only a medium sized state, is a Super Tuesday state. So if Trump is off the ballot, that may - effectively - hand the delegate haul almost entirely to Hayley.
A thread header which gives me lots of new information on a subject I know nothing about, in a way which is easy to understand, is one of the joys of PB. This does it by the bucket load.
When I was there there was a strike or protest over wages by municipal workers (Cape Town).
Around 500 people in their high-viz vests and council clothing were marching with associated banners through the city.
Except they weren't marching. The weren't jogging. They were moving rhythmically forward to a beat which they were singing to also. A gutteral, visceral noise, no doubt demanding nothing more sinister than better "pay 'n conditions". But dear god to this white boy it seemed like Cetshwayo's advancing army.
Trivia point: in my platoon I had a private called Chard who was a direct descendant. Fantastic soldier.
Direct descendant of who?
(And what's an indirect descendent?)
Cetshwayo
An “indirect descendent” means that you have a common ancestor.
It can be used in a ridiculous manner (eg I am an indirect descendent of the King). But it’s more commonly used for nephews and nieces (ie common ancestor in grandparents but not in the direct line)
The soldier's name was Chard ffs.
Sounds like a good man to have your back. In which campaign was he awarded the FFS?
The Zulu Wars. The defence of Rorke's Drift resulted in the awarding of twelve FFS's in a single campaign. Welsh soldiers defeated many[1] Zulu impi with singing and Michael Caine guyliner. The Zulu, armed with small pieces of fruit, never stood a chance.
[1] Estimates vary, but most settled on "thousands of them"
It's notable how many people on here have personal connections to SA.
South Africa must be one of the UK's most neglected and therefore mismanaged foreign relations. There is a lot of potential for mutual aid and synergy there if some imagination and effort were applied.
That's unlikely to come from this government, or its successor. Where/how would you start ?
You're probably right about the potential, though, since it's not financial aid that's needed.
Comments
grid.iamkate.com
When we see a picture of @IanB2 dog (for scale), it is because it is real that we enjoy it. If Ian superimposed a perfect AI dog on all his pictures it would just be annoying whereas we all go 'Ahhh' because we know it is real (or do we?).
I agree that instead of a photoshoped model on the front of a magazine it will probably be replaced by AI, but AI won't replace your holiday snaps, or Ian's dog, or scenes from a war, or the picture of a volcano erupting. We want to see the real events happening, not a made up image of something that did or didn't happen.
Go and look on Discord. It’s mind blowing
And it’s not just invented photos. It’s fake images of real people - it’s cartoons and paintings and illustrations - AI has made another quantum leap. Remember that 3 years ago everyone was amazed when ChatGPT drew a cartoon of a dog in a tutu
Now extrapolate 3 years hence
It's interesting there was opprobrium for Disney when it turned out AI was used for the Secret Invasion intro, and for WotC when some art was apparently made by AI. Pathfinder and others, I think, have stated they'll only use human artists.
One political route to thwarting it would be an ANC-DA coalition in government but that's a more unlikely coupling than Jacob and Vic on Emmerdale. It can't happen unless both sets of leadership are changed.
Maybe the end of apartheid needed the cleansing flames of conflict to forge the new order instead of Mandela's Handforth Parish Council T&R Commission and the ultimately unsatisfactory constitutional settlement.
What else? I really don’t know. I’ve just seen some war photographs which look entirely real. How will editors know that their photographers aren’t just sitting at home typing prompts?
But this goes beyond that. AI will create photographs and ideas and art we haven’t even conceived - and wait til it gets to videos
If I may be allowed one more. And then that is it, mods, I promise (I have to go Xmas shopping anyway)
Look at this. It’s really beautiful. It reminds me of the best work by Bill Viola - who uses a lot of water. If I knew it was done by him - with days spent with models in pools - I’d say it’s worth $20k for an original limited print
But it was done by Midjourney in 2 minutes. These girls don’t exist. So does that make it worthless and ugly? What is beauty? What is art? Etc etc etc
More likely they go all Spanish on them and ban the DA for inciting separation
But it’s a legitimate political debate (as is the contention - in my view false - that Israel is committing genocide). The use of the term “Zionist propaganda” is potentially more troubling but it is context dependent and you can’t tell without that.
It’s the Telegraph muck raking
He is of the opinion that all jobs that involve sifting through data and re-presenting it or adding to it and producing an outcome are doomed which is most non-physical jobs eg call centres answering questions or coming to a conclusion on the information you give them in conjunction with what they have.
Listening to Hannah Fry on AI is also quite interesting.
If you are a Palestinian born in the Israeli administered West Bank, then you do not have the same rights as a Jew born there.
And very interesting that we have arrived at that point in a thread about South Africa, as @No_Offence_Alan has pointed out.
An “indirect descendent” means that you have a common ancestor.
It can be used in a ridiculous manner (eg I am an indirect descendent of the King). But it’s more commonly used for nephews and nieces (ie common ancestor in grandparents but not in the direct line)
South Africa must be one of the UK's most neglected and therefore mismanaged foreign relations. There is a lot of potential for mutual aid and synergy there if some imagination and effort were applied.
Among the many problems, though, have been:
(1) Councils rescinding planning permission for interconnectors
(2) National Grid dragging their feet
(3) National Grid refusing payments from wind developers for interconnects, because that reduced their regulatory asset base and therefore what they are allows to earn in profits
* Yes, I know there are exceptions, but they are usually national security rather than wind related
Similar to India cocking a snook at the UK and turning towards the USSR and making a clear point about their independence by having a somewhat negative relationship with their former colonial masters.
A cautionary tale of a dystopian future in which art is controlled by machines tended by the Priests of Syrinx
Until the elder race return...
In general I don't think singers' opinions should either be very influential or a reason to cancel them, unless they sing specifically extremist songs. The same applies to composers, writers, etc. The new poetry collection by Corbyn and McCluskey (a good read IMO - https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/poetry-for-the-many/) includes people like Rudyard Kipling, on the basis that their poetry should be admired in context regardless of their personal views on other matters.
For example, the Palestinian Authority has no authority to stop Israel building new settlements in... errr... areas previously controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
And Israeli soldiers are quite free to enter Palestinian Authority controlled towns. While PA policy are certainly not free to enter Israeli settlements.
The whole road network is designed around the Israeli settlers. Getting from one Palestinian village to another can take hours.
You cannot spend time in the West Bank, and not see that it is controlled by Israel.
The ANC has little love for the UK. What - other than money - can we offer? And money from China (which covets South Africa's mineral wealth) comes with many fewer strings.
The society there has produced a crop of good developers (a couple in the team next to mine in the bank) - I think it must be a combination of basic education, a wish to get out, and the fact that if you have some kind of computer, you can teach yourself IT. The tools are nearly all free.
Another thing that seems to have changed is the ambitions. Previously, it was all about getting money together to go back to SA, buy a house and start a business. It's been a while since I heard that. They want to stay anywhere but SA.
I think at this point that the next step of the cycle in South Africa will, indeed be Zimbabwe style expropriation of assets. All the SA people I meet (black and white) assume this.
Which raises an interesting point. When Zimbabwe started expropriating assets, illegally (according to their own Supreme Court), at gun point, the then British government fought tooth and nail to stop the white farmers coming to the UK. Wrong kind of refugees.
But what is the difference in individual rights.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ministers-urged-ready-response-major-university-going-bust
How do you cope when the local university doesn’t exist and its 20,000 students need to find home
The letter continued: “Queer and trans Palestinians have long highlighted that pinkwashing plays a significant role in Zionist propaganda…
I suppose living your life in primary colours and regurgitating leftist orthodoxy is much easier. Especially if you are too scared to form your own opinions about much at all
Vinyl has shown that technological preference isn't always based on convenience.
Also, DnD's apparent desire to have a virtual/AI DM run things (because there's a DM shortage) may be handy or backfire. Actual humans running games can mess things up but also have more interesting responses and ideas.
So, South African apartheit was characterised by a few elements:
(1) While everyone got a vote, you only got to vote for the "parliament" for your race, and the white parliament was the one with all the money and power. That is pretty much exactly the situation with Palestinians versus Jews in the West Bank.
(2) There were severe restrictions on where people of colour were allowed to own property and to live. That is, again, exactly the same as the situation in the West Bank.
(3) The provision of basic services - transport, health, power, and water - was very different depending on whether you were in a black or a white area. That is, again, exactly the same in the West Bank.
Now, one might argue that it is the job of Palestinians to better themselves, and only once they have done so and proved themselves to not be a threat to the Jews can they be given more rights.
That argument was also made, many times, in the South African apartheit era. South Africa's blacks would need to earn the vote.
Yes that does seem restrictive. But I suppose it takes time to normalise lands acquired in war. We should perhaps commend the Israelis for making some effort to do so.
I'll have you know that some countries never bother.
It has come to my attention that the biggest impact of Trump being (potentially) off the ballot in Colorado, is that he won't therefore be a part of the Republican Primary.
Colorado, while only a medium sized state, is a Super Tuesday state. So if Trump is off the ballot, that may - effectively - hand the delegate haul almost entirely to Hayley.
But ponder your statement. Why would you rather be a trans Arab in Israel than a trans Palestinian in Gaza.
Is it that there are pockets of bigots? The equivalent of, say, the BNP here and there? The odd march of 500 people through the streets? No. It is because Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza institutionally is against LGBTQ rights and thinks nothing of meting out summary justice to LGBTQ people.
Is it any wonder that sometimes Israel thinks fuck it.
More amazingly there are those on this very board who both champion LGBTQ rights and support Hamas.
I have a theory about this...
Those people - the vast majority of Palestinians - have been born in a State adminstered by Israel for a half century.
Israel needs to either: (a) regard them as Israelis with the same rights as every other Israeli, or (b) allow them their own State.
You know, I have some sympathy with the "ah, it's war and it takes time to sort out" view. And in 1980 you could make that case. You could maybe even make it in 1990.
But it's not 1990. It's 2023. The majority of people alive in the West Bank were not even born when the Oslo Accords were signed.
Maybe NH if lucky.
I'm just saying that some countries just leave it at that.
Empathy and understanding has to work both ways.
Thing is, you know what the definition of madness is, now, don't you.
Suppose you were an Israeli minding his own business in downtown Tel Aviv (does Tel Aviv have a downtown) and you had seen what happened in oh I don't know, say Gaza. What might your view on it all be.
But we also need to accept that the current Israeli government has no interest in even reducing settlement building, let alone dismantling or moving settlers, and that therefore a two state solution is not possible. Or even desired by those in power in Israel.
There will therefore continue to be an almost unlimited number of radicalised Palestinians who have every bit as good a reason to be angry as those Israelis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid
All behaviour is driven by need but it fucking baffled me as to what need is being fulfilled by the burning desire to post off-topic "AI" generated shitposts with manic frequency.
(*Soviet Russia, British Empire, Apartheid South Africa, Ulster Protestants, China towards Uyghur. I have no doubt missed many even more egregious examples.)
There are people, and Alexander is one, who just want to watch the world burn, and to be burned with it.
Enjoy Tesco's. Your nod to the mores of the working class I'm sure. They still hate you as a class traitor though.
The alternative is to assimilate the subject people, but that usually requires giving them a stake in the system.
Far better to hand the West Bank back to Jordan. Add in security guarantees for Israel and stuff the Hashemite’s mouths with gold.
Although, North & South America and Australia required massive immigrant numbers swamping the original inhabitants coupled with near genocide unwittingly abetted by European diseases.
The Norman invasion might be an example of severe oppression short of ethnic cleansing that was never really overthrown, I guess?
There is no rule. I am a realpolitikist. I very much disagree with the I want it to be so therefore it shall be so school of geopolitical analysis.
The first thing they did was to tell the visa/passport applications unit in Zimbabwe to clamp down on any applications. Any excuse to deny an application.
The unit, which like many of its kind, is staffed with locals, took this to mean all applications. A little time later, after some anguished calls, the supply of Zimbabwean medical staff for the NHS resumed - the local employees hadn't been told/understood that it was just the white applicants who were to be cracked down on.
A secondary element of this comedy was a re-write of the rules for apply for UK residency/passport. One of which was to declare that service in the British military wasn't a "connection with the UK". Quite a few of the Zimbabweans in questions has served in the UK military.
This caused fun, when sometime later, a Gurkha chap with a VC applied to come to the UK. And was denied.
In the short run, Israel can - I'm sure - ensure a pliant Palestine via superior weapons, blockades and the like.
But that comes with a cost. It comes with the cost of Israel surrendering the moral high ground it has had for so long. The lives of Palestinians born inside Israeli administered Palestine are pretty shit. And while you can put a lot of that down to shitty Palestinian leadership, Israel cannot shirk all responsibility, because Palestine is not self governing.
Would you build a factory in Palestine to make T-Shirts, if you didn't know whether you could export them?
By the simple expedient of telling a mercenary arms to feed/pay itself off the land until all the food was gone. Then winter came....
A European grid with sufficient capacity would cut such losses by a substantial amount, and pay for itself in perhaps half a decade - much quicker than any of the other alternatives. For now, we don't even have a UK wide grid with enough capacity.
Pumped storage in the right location (the right geographic features cut construction costs massively) is probably next - see the various proposals in the south west, and Scotland:
https://www.scottishrenewables.com/news/1295-six-pumped-storage-hydro-projects-to-create-up-to-14800-uk-jobs-new-report-finds
Batteries, for now, are too expensive for anything but local, short term storage (and EVs will probably add capacity faster than pure storage projects).
https://x.com/maoskyist/status/1737776393943974004?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
It might be this, in which case good on him
https://x.com/churnwell/status/1737750779455267025?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Of course we’ve all spotted it but we don’t talk about it it because there’s not much interesting to say
But he doesn’t understand that
It still - however -needs the dismantlement of massive numbers of settlements in the West Bank. And those settlements keep growing, and keep moving further and further inside the West Bank.
And with every person that moves there, and every outpost constructed, it becomes harder for Israel to leave.
Many thanks DA.
[1] Estimates vary, but most settled on "thousands of them"
Where/how would you start ?
You're probably right about the potential, though, since it's not financial aid that's needed.