Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Public sympathies – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 12 in General
Public sympathies – politicalbetting.com

Which side in the Israeli?Palestinian conflict do you sympathise with more?The Israeli side: 16% (-2 from 22-23 Nov)The Palestinian side: 26% (+5)Both sides equally: 24% (-7)Don't know: 34% (+5)https://t.co/e9U34vDxvn pic.twitter.com/bc3V9qbIdn

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,983
    Britons don't like seeing thousands of kids getting killed shocker. The international community needs to unite around a ceasefire and a long term plan for a just peace in the region.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    edited February 18
    30% of Conservative voters sympathise more with the Israeli side compared to only 14% for the Palestinian side. Leave voters also preference Israel by 26% to 14% for Palestinians

    44% of Labour voters sympathise more with the Palestinian side compared to just 7% for the Israeli side. Remain voters too preference Palestinians by 37% to 10% for Israelis
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/02/12/4b134/1
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,719
    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,455
    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    HYUFD said:

    30% of Conservative voters sympathise more with the Israeli side compared to only 14% for the Palestinian side. Leave voters also preference Israel by 26% to 14% for Palestinians

    44% of Labour voters sympathise more with the Palestinian side compared to just 7% for the Israeli side. Remain voters too preference Palestinians by 37% to 10% for Israelis
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/02/12/4b134/1

    People who like marmite sympathise more with one side while people who wear brown shoes do also.
  • AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,168
    I don't care.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453

    I don't care.

    Likewise

    Let them duke it out and please remove this poisonous debate from British discourse
  • AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    The real debate, is which of AI or veganism is going to destroy the world first?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    @Leon - or anyone else - this is probably the easiest way to run LLMs locally, so you can get that uncensored content:

    https://thenewstack.io/how-to-set-up-and-run-a-local-llm-with-ollama-and-llama-2/
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    Britons don't like seeing thousands of kids getting killed shocker. The international community needs to unite around a ceasefire and a long term plan for a just peace in the region.

    fat chance Hamas will agree, it's leaders live life of luxury elsewhere so no interest in real peace
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,455
    rcs1000 said:

    For what it's worth, I have a great deal of sympathy with average Israelis and Palestinians, but none at all with the leadership of Hamas, or Netanyahu, or the Religious Settler movement.

    Agree. The acute difficulty for the majority is that, as usual supporting good people and good politicians on all sides (if they can find them), in the Israel/Palestine situation it seems not possible to turn this into a coherent policy. Neither the status quo, the status quo ante or any realistic status to come seems intelligent, realistic or good for the ordinary people of all sides.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
  • rcs1000 said:

    @Leon - or anyone else - this is probably the easiest way to run LLMs locally, so you can get that uncensored content:

    https://thenewstack.io/how-to-set-up-and-run-a-local-llm-with-ollama-and-llama-2/

    Are they the ones that can make illegal porn videos? Can we look forward to Nadine Dorries calling for a ban on Macbook Pros?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    edited February 18
    algarkirk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For what it's worth, I have a great deal of sympathy with average Israelis and Palestinians, but none at all with the leadership of Hamas, or Netanyahu, or the Religious Settler movement.

    Agree. The acute difficulty for the majority is that, as usual supporting good people and good politicians on all sides (if they can find them), in the Israel/Palestine situation it seems not possible to turn this into a coherent policy. Neither the status quo, the status quo ante or any realistic status to come seems intelligent, realistic or good for the ordinary people of all sides.
    It remains extremely notable how little practical support is going to Palestine from all the surrounding Arab/Muslim nations

    It’s almost like these governments don’t actually care that much despite everything they say
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,757
    edited February 18

    rcs1000 said:

    @Leon - or anyone else - this is probably the easiest way to run LLMs locally, so you can get that uncensored content:

    https://thenewstack.io/how-to-set-up-and-run-a-local-llm-with-ollama-and-llama-2/

    Are they the ones that can make illegal porn videos? Can we look forward to Nadine Dorries calling for a ban on Macbook Pros?
    Isn’t porn the first major use for pretty much any new media invention, going back at least as far as the 8mm film camera?

    The good news for those of us close to completing Xhamster, there’s about to be abundant and limitless porn, with no-one treated badly while making it.
  • algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    No it isn't and it is disingenuous to make that claim. What is odd, however, is that no-one asked whether Hamas should have declared a ceasefire before 7/10 when it was periodically firing rockets in the general direction of Tel Aviv. Or that no-one cares about dead Muslim babies in Yemen or Sudan.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Leon - or anyone else - this is probably the easiest way to run LLMs locally, so you can get that uncensored content:

    https://thenewstack.io/how-to-set-up-and-run-a-local-llm-with-ollama-and-llama-2/

    Are they the ones that can make illegal porn videos? Can we look forward to Nadine Dorries calling for a ban on Macbook Pros?
    Isn’t porn the first major use for pretty much any new media invention, going back at least as far as the 8mm film camera?

    The good news for those of us close to completing Xhamster, there’s about to be abundant and limitless porn, with no-one treated badly while making it.
    Will no one think of the fluffers?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,127
    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It's not complex, it's entirely the fault of religion.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,486
    edited February 18

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Absolutely.

    And before any runs in with the fallacy that Israel has been blockading Gaza since it withdrew, that again is false. Israel has only been blockading Gaza since Hamas took over, and quite justifiably so.

    If you want a chance of peace, a chance of a better life for both Palestinians and Israelis, then that must be a future without Hamas. For that reason (and more) I wholeheartedly support Israel finishing the job and destroying Hamas completely. Hundreds of thousands of civilians are estimated to have died due to our invasion of Iraq, and a comparable death toll may occur to vanquish Hamas. So long as Israel remains within the rules of law and proportionality, that is tragic but legal. Innocent refugees should ideally be granted a place of refuge outside the war zone, but there can be absolutely no safe haven within Gaza for Hamas.

    Regrettably it will mean civilian casualties, war always does, so we need to be honest about that.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,954
    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    There are some questions not shown in the graphs above. For example, only 69% of Britons will say that the Hamas attack last October was not justified.

    Although it's just 5% who will say it was justified, it's still a result that sends a shiver down my spine. Whatever you might think about what Israel has done before or since, I would have thought that recognising the Hamas attack as unjustified would have been something almost everyone could agree on.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    Even the UK and Biden's US wouldn't support Israel doing that, albeit Trump might.

    Egypt and Jordan would also be opposed because of being swamped by Palestinian refugees and might even go to war with Israel again as a result. Iranians are Shia rather than Sunni Muslims which most Palestinians are albeit it does fund Hamas and would continue to do so
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It's not complex, it's entirely the fault of religion.
    Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, maybe they should listen more to him?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    HYUFD said:

    30% of Conservative voters sympathise more with the Israeli side compared to only 14% for the Palestinian side. Leave voters also preference Israel by 26% to 14% for Palestinians

    44% of Labour voters sympathise more with the Palestinian side compared to just 7% for the Israeli side. Remain voters too preference Palestinians by 37% to 10% for Israelis
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/02/12/4b134/1

    Time for Starmer to get in step with his supporters his voters and most civilised human beings.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    Even the UK and Biden's US wouldn't support Israel doing that, albeit Trump might.

    Egypt and Jordan would also be opposed because of being swamped by Palestinian refugees and might even go to war with Israel again as a result. Iranians are Shia rather than Sunni Muslims which most Palestinians are albeit it does fund Hamas and would continue to do so
    Maybe

    But this seems - to me - to be the ultimate logic of Israel’s policies post October 7. Elimination of all threats from Palestinians

    That means removing them from “Israel”

    I am certainly not applauding this! Just trying to work out their strategy. I don’t think it is mindless cruelty or mere revenge - if you see this as their long term goal then Gaza makes a terrible kind of sense

    And they need to do it now or soon before Iran gets those nukes
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It's not complex, it's entirely the fault of religion.
    Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, maybe they should listen more to him?
    I don't think anyone is doing a lot of turning the other cheek right now.
  • Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    That may well be their thinking, but I'm not convinced it works. How ever far away you push the Palestinians, they will still exist and there will still be a border you can fire missiles over.

    And no, I don't have a better plan, apart from two sets of better leaders.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    Even the UK and Biden's US wouldn't support Israel doing that, albeit Trump might.

    Egypt and Jordan would also be opposed because of being swamped by Palestinian refugees and might even go to war with Israel again as a result. Iranians are Shia rather than Sunni Muslims which most Palestinians are albeit it does fund Hamas and would continue to do so
    Maybe

    But this seems - to me - to be the ultimate logic of Israel’s policies post October 7. Elimination of all threats from Palestinians

    That means removing them from “Israel”

    I am certainly not applauding this! Just trying to work out their strategy. I don’t think it is mindless cruelty or mere revenge - if you see this as their long term goal then Gaza makes a terrible kind of sense

    And they need to do it now or soon before Iran gets those nukes
    There are 7m Jews and 7m Muslims in the area comprising greater Israel.

    That is the scale of the issue.

    And just as we're not keen on a few tens of thousands of asylum seekers arriving by boat, imagine how the nearby governments would feel about being handed millions of Palestinians.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    That may well be their thinking, but I'm not convinced it works. How ever far away you push the Palestinians, they will still exist and there will still be a border you can fire missiles over.

    And no, I don't have a better plan, apart from two sets of better leaders.

    Yes I’m not convinced it works either. But then, what does?

    After October 7 Israelis - I sense - believe they can no longer live alongside Palestinians who want to kill all Jews. The Palestinians need to be put behind a much stronger border

    So push the Gazans into Sinai and ultimately push the West Bankers across the Jordan

    And do it now while Israel still has unquestionable military superiority and other Arab countries are reluctant to take on Israel
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    edited February 18
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    Even the UK and Biden's US wouldn't support Israel doing that, albeit Trump might.

    Egypt and Jordan would also be opposed because of being swamped by Palestinian refugees and might even go to war with Israel again as a result. Iranians are Shia rather than Sunni Muslims which most Palestinians are albeit it does fund Hamas and would continue to do so
    Maybe

    But this seems - to me - to be the ultimate logic of Israel’s policies post October 7. Elimination of all threats from Palestinians

    That means removing them from “Israel”

    I am certainly not applauding this! Just trying to work out their strategy. I don’t think it is mindless cruelty or mere revenge - if you see this as their long term goal then Gaza makes a terrible kind of sense

    And they need to do it now or soon before Iran gets those nukes
    It would almost certainly see Jordan and Egypt go to war with Israel if it tried to conquer the West Bank and Gaza, maybe Syria too.

    Iran is already providing support to Hamas in Gaza even without nukes. A 2 state solution remains the only viable one
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,524
    rcs1000 said:

    For what it's worth, I have a great deal of sympathy with average Israelis and Palestinians, but none at all with the leadership of Hamas, or Netanyahu, or the Religious Settler movement.

    • Politicians govern the people with the consent of the people and they enact policies in the name of the people.
    • The people of the state of Israel are responsible for the Government of the State of Israel and its actions, and the people of the Gaza Strip are responsible for Hamas and its actions.
    • Politicians are not dropped from orbit, they are held up from below.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,876
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Leon - or anyone else - this is probably the easiest way to run LLMs locally, so you can get that uncensored content:

    https://thenewstack.io/how-to-set-up-and-run-a-local-llm-with-ollama-and-llama-2/

    Are they the ones that can make illegal porn videos? Can we look forward to Nadine Dorries calling for a ban on Macbook Pros?
    Isn’t porn the first major use for pretty much any new media invention, going back at least as far as the 8mm film camera?

    The good news for those of us close to completing Xhamster, there’s about to be abundant and limitless porn, with no-one treated badly while making it.
    Won’t anyone think of the poor, redundant stepmoms?!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,486
    edited February 18
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    Even the UK and Biden's US wouldn't support Israel doing that, albeit Trump might.

    Egypt and Jordan would also be opposed because of being swamped by Palestinian refugees and might even go to war with Israel again as a result. Iranians are Shia rather than Sunni Muslims which most Palestinians are albeit it does fund Hamas and would continue to do so
    Maybe

    But this seems - to me - to be the ultimate logic of Israel’s policies post October 7. Elimination of all threats from Palestinians

    That means removing them from “Israel”

    I am certainly not applauding this! Just trying to work out their strategy. I don’t think it is mindless cruelty or mere revenge - if you see this as their long term goal then Gaza makes a terrible kind of sense

    And they need to do it now or soon before Iran gets those nukes
    There are 7m Jews and 7m Muslims in the area comprising greater Israel.

    That is the scale of the issue.

    And just as we're not keen on a few tens of thousands of asylum seekers arriving by boat, imagine how the nearby governments would feel about being handed millions of Palestinians.
    Well if you want to talk pure numbers then approximately 7 million Syrians have fled Syria.

    Why should Syrians be able to get refuge outside of Syria but it be denied to Palestinians?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    Even the UK and Biden's US wouldn't support Israel doing that, albeit Trump might.

    Egypt and Jordan would also be opposed because of being swamped by Palestinian refugees and might even go to war with Israel again as a result. Iranians are Shia rather than Sunni Muslims which most Palestinians are albeit it does fund Hamas and would continue to do so
    Maybe

    But this seems - to me - to be the ultimate logic of Israel’s policies post October 7. Elimination of all threats from Palestinians

    That means removing them from “Israel”

    I am certainly not applauding this! Just trying to work out their strategy. I don’t think it is mindless cruelty or mere revenge - if you see this as their long term goal then Gaza makes a terrible kind of sense

    And they need to do it now or soon before Iran gets those nukes
    It would almost certainly see Egypt and Jordan go to war with Israel if it tried to conquer the West Bank, maybe Syria too.

    Iran is already providing support to Hamas in Gaza even without nukes. A 2 state solution remains the only viable one
    I’m not so sure Egypt and Jordan would fight

    And I fear a “2 state solution” - which was the best bet, and came close to fruition? - has passed into a history as a what if
  • Cameron and Starmer are both canny politicians. They know the ground has shifted and that they can now say what is patently obvious. Killling kids and targeting civilians - however provoked - is not a recipe for long-term security. Not for Israel, not for Gaza and not for us. Quite the reverse in fact
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Leon - or anyone else - this is probably the easiest way to run LLMs locally, so you can get that uncensored content:

    https://thenewstack.io/how-to-set-up-and-run-a-local-llm-with-ollama-and-llama-2/

    Are they the ones that can make illegal porn videos? Can we look forward to Nadine Dorries calling for a ban on Macbook Pros?
    Isn’t porn the first major use for pretty much any new media invention, going back at least as far as the 8mm film camera?

    The good news for those of us close to completing Xhamster, there’s about to be abundant and limitless porn, with no-one treated badly while making it.
    Won’t anyone think of the poor, redundant stepmoms?!
    They can always become dockside hookers
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For what it's worth, I have a great deal of sympathy with average Israelis and Palestinians, but none at all with the leadership of Hamas, or Netanyahu, or the Religious Settler movement.

    • Politicians govern the people with the consent of the people and they enact policies in the name of the people.
    • The people of the state of Israel are responsible for the Government of the State of Israel and its actions, and the people of the Gaza Strip are responsible for Hamas and its actions.
    • Politicians are not dropped from orbit, they are held up from below.
    While that's true, we're all (sadly) total suckers for the line:

    It's not your fault.

    (Or perhaps more specifically, it's someone else's fault.)

    When, most of the time, it is our fault.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,458

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Leon - or anyone else - this is probably the easiest way to run LLMs locally, so you can get that uncensored content:

    https://thenewstack.io/how-to-set-up-and-run-a-local-llm-with-ollama-and-llama-2/

    Are they the ones that can make illegal porn videos? Can we look forward to Nadine Dorries calling for a ban on Macbook Pros?
    Isn’t porn the first major use for pretty much any new media invention, going back at least as far as the 8mm film camera?

    The good news for those of us close to completing Xhamster, there’s about to be abundant and limitless porn, with no-one treated badly while making it.
    Won’t anyone think of the poor, redundant stepmoms?!
    And the tractors going to the scrapyard.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,458
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Leon - or anyone else - this is probably the easiest way to run LLMs locally, so you can get that uncensored content:

    https://thenewstack.io/how-to-set-up-and-run-a-local-llm-with-ollama-and-llama-2/

    Are they the ones that can make illegal porn videos? Can we look forward to Nadine Dorries calling for a ban on Macbook Pros?
    Isn’t porn the first major use for pretty much any new media invention, going back at least as far as the 8mm film camera?

    The good news for those of us close to completing Xhamster, there’s about to be abundant and limitless porn, with no-one treated badly while making it.
    Will no one think of the fluffers?
    They can move to TfL?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,757
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Leon - or anyone else - this is probably the easiest way to run LLMs locally, so you can get that uncensored content:

    https://thenewstack.io/how-to-set-up-and-run-a-local-llm-with-ollama-and-llama-2/

    Are they the ones that can make illegal porn videos? Can we look forward to Nadine Dorries calling for a ban on Macbook Pros?
    Isn’t porn the first major use for pretty much any new media invention, going back at least as far as the 8mm film camera?

    The good news for those of us close to completing Xhamster, there’s about to be abundant and limitless porn, with no-one treated badly while making it.
    Won’t anyone think of the poor, redundant stepmoms?!
    And the tractors going to the scrapyard.
    That poor fake taxi.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793
    rcs1000 said:

    While that's true, we're all (sadly) total suckers for the line:

    It's not your fault.

    (Or perhaps more specifically, it's someone else's fault.)

    When, most of the time, it is our fault.

    Brexit was DEFINITELY your fault...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Absolutely.

    And before any runs in with the fallacy that Israel has been blockading Gaza since it withdrew, that again is false. Israel has only been blockading Gaza since Hamas took over, and quite justifiably so.

    If you want a chance of peace, a chance of a better life for both Palestinians and Israelis, then that must be a future without Hamas. For that reason (and more) I wholeheartedly support Israel finishing the job and destroying Hamas completely. Hundreds of thousands of civilians are estimated to have died due to our invasion of Iraq, and a comparable death toll may occur to vanquish Hamas. So long as Israel remains within the rules of law and proportionality, that is tragic but legal. Innocent refugees should ideally be granted a place of refuge outside the war zone, but there can be absolutely no safe haven within Gaza for Hamas.

    Regrettably it will mean civilian casualties, war always does, so we need to be honest about that.
    Real issue is no arab nation willing to help them one bit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,757
    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Well perhaps Hamas should have thought of that, before raining down weapons and troops on a music festival, taking pot shots at unarmed civilians?
  • Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.

    They chose to fight in October knowing the consequences, they started this latest conflict not Israel.

    They could also unconditionally surrender, lay down their arms and release all hostages if they wanted to. They haven't.

    If you want to bemoan casualties then do so. But to just outright lie and fabricate untruths is beneath you.

    Or should be.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    That may well be their thinking, but I'm not convinced it works. How ever far away you push the Palestinians, they will still exist and there will still be a border you can fire missiles over.

    And no, I don't have a better plan, apart from two sets of better leaders.

    Yes I’m not convinced it works either. But then, what does?

    After October 7 Israelis - I sense - believe they can no longer live alongside Palestinians who want to kill all Jews. The Palestinians need to be put behind a much stronger border

    So push the Gazans into Sinai and ultimately push the West Bankers across the Jordan

    And do it now while Israel still has unquestionable military superiority and other Arab countries are reluctant to take on Israel
    Israelis have killed way more people in FOUR MONTHS than Hamas have killed in 18 YEARS...
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    edited February 18
    Roger said:

    HYUFD said:

    30% of Conservative voters sympathise more with the Israeli side compared to only 14% for the Palestinian side. Leave voters also preference Israel by 26% to 14% for Palestinians

    44% of Labour voters sympathise more with the Palestinian side compared to just 7% for the Israeli side. Remain voters too preference Palestinians by 37% to 10% for Israelis
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/02/12/4b134/1

    Time for Starmer to get in step with his supporters his voters and most civilised human beings.
    I agree it’s a key moment in this years UK politics. Up to now Starmer has been tacking to the governments position - decision is now in governments court to tack to the Starmer position, or make this a wedge issue.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    There are some questions not shown in the graphs above. For example, only 69% of Britons will say that the Hamas attack last October was not justified.

    Although it's just 5% who will say it was justified, it's still a result that sends a shiver down my spine. Whatever you might think about what Israel has done before or since, I would have thought that recognising the Hamas attack as unjustified would have been something almost everyone could agree on.
    We have a lot of nutters living in UK nowadays.
  • Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,127
    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It's not complex, it's entirely the fault of religion.
    Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, maybe they should listen more to him?
    Christians, I'm afraid, are every bit as good at conquest and visiting misery and death on the people they hate as Jews and Muslims are, where they are presented with the power to do so. We don't even have to trawl through the crimes of the past 2,000 years to understand that. The Russian Orthodox Church and much of the American evangelical movement are key enablers of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, the modern American Republican Party, and actively support their manifold acts of repression, bigotry, cruelty and violence.

    That tendency doesn't represent the entirety of faith but it's the one that always seems to win out in the end, given enough time. The sects that decide it might be preferable to be nice to other people simply get outflanked by fundamentalists offering the simple comforts of certainty and purity. The only true safeguard of tolerance and pluralism in any society is secularism and the marginalisation of faith (achieved through a combination of public apathy, atheism and the relegation of faith groups to banal cultural traditions: nobody is menaced by the dear old CofE and its harmless cycle of food festivals.) The moment one of these groups gains the upper hand, everybody else gets beaten into submission.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    That may well be their thinking, but I'm not convinced it works. How ever far away you push the Palestinians, they will still exist and there will still be a border you can fire missiles over.

    And no, I don't have a better plan, apart from two sets of better leaders.

    Yes I’m not convinced it works either. But then, what does?

    After October 7 Israelis - I sense - believe they can no longer live alongside Palestinians who want to kill all Jews. The Palestinians need to be put behind a much stronger border

    So push the Gazans into Sinai and ultimately push the West Bankers across the Jordan

    And do it now while Israel still has unquestionable military superiority and other Arab countries are reluctant to take on Israel
    Israelis have killed way more people in FOUR MONTHS than Hamas have killed in 18 YEARS...
    So?

    Proportionality has never meant a 1:1 ratio. That's not what it means. How many did we kill in Iraq versus how many of our soldiers we lost? And that wasn't an existential war for survival started by the enemy like Israel is fighting.

    Numbers are irrelevant. As long as Hamas exists, Israel is within its rights to proportionately kill to destroy them.
  • malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Absolutely.

    And before any runs in with the fallacy that Israel has been blockading Gaza since it withdrew, that again is false. Israel has only been blockading Gaza since Hamas took over, and quite justifiably so.

    If you want a chance of peace, a chance of a better life for both Palestinians and Israelis, then that must be a future without Hamas. For that reason (and more) I wholeheartedly support Israel finishing the job and destroying Hamas completely. Hundreds of thousands of civilians are estimated to have died due to our invasion of Iraq, and a comparable death toll may occur to vanquish Hamas. So long as Israel remains within the rules of law and proportionality, that is tragic but legal. Innocent refugees should ideally be granted a place of refuge outside the war zone, but there can be absolutely no safe haven within Gaza for Hamas.

    Regrettably it will mean civilian casualties, war always does, so we need to be honest about that.
    Real issue is no arab nation willing to help them one bit.
    I wonder why that is?

    The Arab nations all don't want to help as they're worried about the consequences, yet Israel is supposed to just live with this violence and do nothing about it?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Well perhaps Hamas should have thought of that, before raining down weapons and troops on a music festival, taking pot shots at unarmed civilians?
    I think you are making the mistake of thinking that Hamas gives a shit about the lives of ordinary Palestinians. They care about one thing: creating a holy war between Jews and Muslims, that will eventually see every jew killed. (And I'm sure after the Jews have gone they'll move onto the next religious group they don't like.)

    Ordinary Palestinians who die as part of this will go to heaven, whether they wanted to be a part of the fight or not. Hamas are, they believe, doing these people a favor.

    All true but I wonder if Hamas miscalculated?

    I think they expected more support from the wider Muslim world and a bigger regional war; and they probably expected America to rein in Israel long before now as it levels Gaza
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    That may well be their thinking, but I'm not convinced it works. How ever far away you push the Palestinians, they will still exist and there will still be a border you can fire missiles over.

    And no, I don't have a better plan, apart from two sets of better leaders.

    Yes I’m not convinced it works either. But then, what does?

    After October 7 Israelis - I sense - believe they can no longer live alongside Palestinians who want to kill all Jews. The Palestinians need to be put behind a much stronger border

    So push the Gazans into Sinai and ultimately push the West Bankers across the Jordan

    And do it now while Israel still has unquestionable military superiority and other Arab countries are reluctant to take on Israel
    Israelis have killed way more people in FOUR MONTHS than Hamas have killed in 18 YEARS...
    So?

    Proportionality has never meant a 1:1 ratio. That's not what it means. How many did we kill in Iraq versus how many of our soldiers we lost? And that wasn't an existential war for survival started by the enemy like Israel is fighting.

    Numbers are irrelevant. As long as Hamas exists, Israel is within its rights to proportionately kill to destroy them.
    Hamas would never have come about if Israel had pulled back to the 1967 border in the 1990s.
  • HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
    Partition may well be a bad solution, but it's also the least bad solution anyone has ever come up with. Some problems don't have a good solution, now matter how much creativity and intelligence is applied.

    Oslo for slow learners.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    That may well be their thinking, but I'm not convinced it works. How ever far away you push the Palestinians, they will still exist and there will still be a border you can fire missiles over.

    And no, I don't have a better plan, apart from two sets of better leaders.

    Yes I’m not convinced it works either. But then, what does?

    After October 7 Israelis - I sense - believe they can no longer live alongside Palestinians who want to kill all Jews. The Palestinians need to be put behind a much stronger border

    So push the Gazans into Sinai and ultimately push the West Bankers across the Jordan

    And do it now while Israel still has unquestionable military superiority and other Arab countries are reluctant to take on Israel
    Israelis have killed way more people in FOUR MONTHS than Hamas have killed in 18 YEARS...
    So?

    Proportionality has never meant a 1:1 ratio. That's not what it means. How many did we kill in Iraq versus how many of our soldiers we lost? And that wasn't an existential war for survival started by the enemy like Israel is fighting.

    Numbers are irrelevant. As long as Hamas exists, Israel is within its rights to proportionately kill to destroy them.
    Hamas would never have come about if Israel had pulled back to the 1967 border in the 1990s.
    Israel had no reason to pull back to the border ever let alone in the 1990s.

    However nice try to rewrite history, it was Arafat that destroyed the peace process that began in the 1990s and rejected the two state solution Bill Clinton nearly negotiated, not Israel.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It's not complex, it's entirely the fault of religion.
    Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, maybe they should listen more to him?
    Christians, I'm afraid, are every bit as good at conquest and visiting misery and death on the people they hate as Jews and Muslims are, where they are presented with the power to do so. We don't even have to trawl through the crimes of the past 2,000 years to understand that. The Russian Orthodox Church and much of the American evangelical movement are key enablers of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, the modern American Republican Party, and actively support their manifold acts of repression, bigotry, cruelty and violence.

    That tendency doesn't represent the entirety of faith but it's the one that always seems to win out in the end, given enough time. The sects that decide it might be preferable to be nice to other people simply get outflanked by fundamentalists offering the simple comforts of certainty and purity. The only true safeguard of tolerance and pluralism in any society is secularism and the marginalisation of faith (achieved through a combination of public apathy, atheism and the relegation of faith groups to banal cultural traditions: nobody is menaced by the dear old CofE and its harmless cycle of food festivals.) The moment one of these groups gains the upper hand, everybody else gets beaten into submission.
    The biggest mass murderers and conquerors in history, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were of course all atheists once they reached power.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    That may well be their thinking, but I'm not convinced it works. How ever far away you push the Palestinians, they will still exist and there will still be a border you can fire missiles over.

    And no, I don't have a better plan, apart from two sets of better leaders.

    Yes I’m not convinced it works either. But then, what does?

    After October 7 Israelis - I sense - believe they can no longer live alongside Palestinians who want to kill all Jews. The Palestinians need to be put behind a much stronger border

    So push the Gazans into Sinai and ultimately push the West Bankers across the Jordan

    And do it now while Israel still has unquestionable military superiority and other Arab countries are reluctant to take on Israel
    Israelis have killed way more people in FOUR MONTHS than Hamas have killed in 18 YEARS...
    So?

    Proportionality has never meant a 1:1 ratio. That's not what it means. How many did we kill in Iraq versus how many of our soldiers we lost? And that wasn't an existential war for survival started by the enemy like Israel is fighting.

    Numbers are irrelevant. As long as Hamas exists, Israel is within its rights to proportionately kill to destroy them.
    Hamas would never have come about if Israel had pulled back to the 1967 border in the 1990s.
    Israel had no reason to pull back to the border ever let alone in the 1990s.

    However nice try to rewrite history, it was Arafat that destroyed the peace process that began in the 1990s and rejected the two state solution Bill Clinton nearly negotiated, not Israel.
    That was because the Palestinian "state" propose by Clinton would have been all but a protectorate of Israel,, NOT an independent nation with freedom of access to Egypt and Jordan.
  • Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908

    HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
    No, a Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza, once freed from Hamas and an Israeli state on its current boundaries living side by side is the only hope for peace. The only other alternative is continued conflict between the 2
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,114
    edited February 18

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
    No, a Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza, once freed from Hamas and an Israeli state on its current boundaries living side by side is the only hope for peace. The only other alternative is continued conflict between the 2
    There are other alternatives.

    One side winning the war and vanquishing the other.
    Both sides laying down their arms singing kumbayah and living in harmony in a single state.
    Etc

    Currently the "two state" lazy thinking is about as plausible as the kumbayah alternative.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,910

    I sympathise with Israel for the appalling attack.

    But their government is run by a facist bully and coward who is doing everything to cause maximum loss of life to innocent people.

    So for that reason I have chosen to sit on the fence. There will be no solution until the Israeli people hopefully vote Netanyahu out.

    "When we win this war, Bibi will punish those who called him out, what is your name?"

    "Don't tell him Horse!"
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,486
    edited February 18

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Don't be racist, skin colour is irrelevant.

    I am absolutely OK with them killing hundreds of thousands if that is what it takes to win the war.

    Just as we have killed hundreds of thousands before.

    Just as we killed millions seeking the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

    The war ends when Hamas is vanquished and does not exist anymore, when the threat is eliminated. Or when they unconditionally lay down their arms and surrender. Until then Israel has my unconditional support to do whatever it takes to achieve that ambition, within the rule of law.

    The rule of law does not require either zero civilian casualties, nor does it require a 1:1 death toll.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
    No, a Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza, once freed from Hamas and an Israeli state on its current boundaries living side by side is the only hope for peace. The only other alternative is continued conflict between the 2
    In your mind for sure. But look, you just said Palestinians will sign up to your partition on Israel’s current boundaries, and be happy with that, with the goodwill to make it work, and there will be peace henceforth. You are clueless. You are delusional.

    You, like Cameron and Sunak, are lazy. You don’t really care about peace.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Don't be racist, skin colour is irrelevant.

    I am absolutely OK with them killing hundreds of thousands if that is what it takes to win the war.

    Just as we have killed hundreds of thousands before.

    Just as we killed millions seeking the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

    The war ends when Hamas is vanquished and does not exist anymore, when the threat is eliminated. Until then Israel has my unconditional support to do whatever it takes to achieve that ambition, within the rule of law.

    The rule of law does not require either zero civilian casualties, nor does it require a 1:1 death toll.
    Hundreds of thousands? There is no limit?

    What if Israel deems it is necessary to kill one million Gazans to exterminate Hamas? 50% of all Gazans?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,798
    Afternoon all :)

    On a complete tangent, if you want to see everything wrong with Britain in 2024, try travelling on trains over a weekend.

    The Train Operators are still wedded to the view the only worth service worth running is Monday to Friday with Saturday and Sunday very much an afterthought. Weekend travellers (and it's well observed leisure traffic has rebounded more strongly since the pandemic than commuter travel) travel on less frequent and shorter trains while off-prak daytime services from Monday to Friday run almost empty by comparison (if you want a nice journey try travelling from Waterloo to Woking, Basingstoke, Winchester or Guildford on late Tuesday morning or early afternoon, twelve coach trains and you have your own carriage).

    My knowledge of this is slight but I believe Government tells the train operators what services to run and when so we need the Government to come into the 21st Century (if JRM makes it to the 19th it'll be a minor miracle) and provide a single seven day service with more frequent daytime trains on Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays and perhaps fewer daytime and commuting services Monday to Friday.

    It's the inability to change, the paralysis of mediocrity as @stodge would and indeed does call it. It reminds me of the phrase "kicking the can down the road" which has become endemic in Government and business. It speaks to the inability and unwillingness to face up to transformative issues, the unwillingness to change backed by the inability to face the consequences of change.

    One might almost call it "conservatism by inertia" (another good @stodge phrase).

    There are some who fear (perhaps justifiably), the can, having had a bigger kicking than a forward in a 1970s match against Leeds or Chelsea, may be on for more of the same under Starmer.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
    No, a Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza, once freed from Hamas and an Israeli state on its current boundaries living side by side is the only hope for peace. The only other alternative is continued conflict between the 2
    In your mind for sure. But look, you just said Palestinians will sign up to your partition on Israel’s current boundaries, and be happy with that, with the goodwill to make it work, and there will be peace henceforth. You are clueless. You are delusional.

    You, like Cameron and Sunak, are lazy. You don’t really care about peace.
    Most would, certainly in the West Bank. Most Palestinians are not Hamas
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,780

    FPT
    maxh said:

    darkage said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Jonathan said:

    The right are no longer conservative. If you like pragmatic, “what matters is what works” policies you head to the left. If you want to take the world forward you also vote for the left or centre.

    If you want the world to burn or more radical change you head to the neo right (or far lef)t, who want to turn the clock back to an illusion of childhood before the modern world took hold.

    What utter shite. If you want pragmatic “what matters is what works” policies for an advanced economy, then you copy the Singaporean government

    If you’re a poor country, you copy China. If you’re a poor country with terrible crime, you cope El Salvador

    What works is all about consent, in the end. You need a broad buy-in of a broad direction of travel: the Nordics, Switzerland, Singapore, Uruguay (never gets a mention but compare it to Argentina and Brazil) etc. They go through ups and downs but generally plough forward. China has had an extraordinary 30 year spurt but now faces huge headwinds which are leading to ever-greater authoritarianism. That suggests consent is not readily available. There may be big trouble ahead.

    What should perhaps concern us more is the End of Democracy altogether. Young people are staggeringly illiberal, and strikingly apathetic about democracy - they see it as not working for them, so why should they?

    "Younger people more likely to doubt merits of democracy – global poll

    International study reveals 42% of people aged 18 to 35 supportive of military rule, against 20% of older respondents"

    This is a global trend, and we see it also in the UK

    See also this paragraph:

    "Many respondents believed China’s growing influence would be a force for good, with nearly twice as many respondents believing it would have a positive impact (45%) on their country as a negative one (25%)."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/11/younger-people-more-relaxed-alternatives-democracy-survey

    America is no longer the beacon, in many ways China supplants it (even as China faces problems). Out here in impoverished Phnom Penh - paradoxically surging with Chinese money - I can see why. Crime is low, food is good, life gets better, there is possibly less litter in central Phnom Penh than in Paris, London or NYC

    Are we surprised?

    They're all taught that Western nations and Western values are at the root of all evil in the world from the moment they're able to write.
    Indeed. The problem with having the right in charge is that they routinely denigrate the tolerant liberal values that built our civilisation as being 'woke' rather than celebrate them. I may say that you are occasionally guilty of this. When you have Tory mouthpieces like the DM and the Tele screaming that the values that built us are somehow foreign, is it surprising that we are heading towards the rightist authoritarianism they crave?
    This is a matter of perception. For a while I have been of the view that it is mostly the other way around, that the it is the left 'woke' thinking that is trashing civilisation. But actually, both extremes are as bad as each other and both have dictatorial and authoritarian tendencies. The point that annoys me immensely is that the woke left get an endless free pass because of the belief that they are on 'the right side of history', whereas the right are on the 'wrong side of history'. All I would comment is that, in the end, is that you have to decide these things for yourself.

    It seems to me that the centrist/one nation wing of the conservative party are redundant and finished, and the question is whether the new political movement on the right comes from either within the Conservative party, or outside of it. I've said a few times that Tice and the message about 'saving Britain' comes across quite well. But it is also worth following what Dominic Cummings is saying. Essentially I expect the 'new right' movement to promote certain things that are currently not part of mainstream politics, like leave the ECHR, re do the asylum rules, fundamentally reform environmental and planning legislation, abolish net zero, change welfare and health care eligibility rules, fundamentally reform equalities rules. All these are issues that should really be on the table but aren't because of the dubious perception that they are an essential part of 'western civilisation'.

    Can you clarify what you mean by ‘comes
    across quite well’?

    If you mean it’s superficially appealing, I
    agree. But if you mean it is a realistic
    programme for the future prosperity and
    success of this country I find that very
    difficult to believe, and am surprised that someone who clearly thinks hard about this
    stuff would buy into a message like ‘saving
    Britain’.


    What sort of Britain do you think Tice is
    trying to save? One in which we defend to the hilt our massively unequal levels of wealth in the face of a globe that is struggling to finance climate adaptation and deal with unprecedented migration as a result of food and water wars? How do you think that will actually go in practice?

    It seems to me we have a genuine choice, but one that is fast disappearing. We could use our considerable remaining global credibility to lead a movement towards a more equal world with relatively high prosperity for almost all.

    Or we could retreat into a Children of Men-style police state, ever worsening our own lives and those of our children in order to try to ‘save’ a Britain that will have long disappeared in the face of our own authoritarianism.

    @maxh
    I just picked up on the above.
    The comment about Tice was that his message about 'saving Britain' is smart politics which has the potential to upend the Conservative party in a similar manner to how the republicans in France have been destroyed by the "far right" and how Trump has overturned the Republican party in the US. It turns politics in to an existential struggle for survivial and so recruits supporters to the cause.
    Eric Zemmour did what I thought was a masterpiece of this genre in his 10 minute campaign video in the French presidential election of 2022 - now almost completely censored from the internet. There is an indian version that is dubbed in to English that you can find on youtube but it doesn't really convey the power of the original.

    Putting aside the politics, I agree with the idea, insofar that there is a desperate need for national renewal at a similar depth to what was achieved by Atlee or Thatcher- but it is quite obvious to me that this is not going to come from any of the established political parties, unless the conservatives can pull off another reinvention - something that is not beyond the realms of possibility. The labour party seem to be offering business as usual with a few tweaks.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
    No, a Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza, once freed from Hamas and an Israeli state on its current boundaries living side by side is the only hope for peace. The only other alternative is continued conflict between the 2
    There are other alternatives.

    One side winning the war and vanquishing the other.
    Both sides laying down their arms singing kumbayah and living in harmony in a single state.
    Etc

    Currently the "two state" lazy thinking is about as plausible as the kumbayah alternative.
    Israel can't win the war by permanent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank as that would lead to permanent terrorist war against them, maybe war with Jordan and Egypt too.

    It might be able to win by destroying Hamas and then withdrawing from Gaza, that is it
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,757

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Terrorists are terrorists, and they come in all shapes, sizes, and colours. Hamas won’t stop until there’s a full-blown civil war in the region, they won’t be happy until there’s no Jews in the Middle East. Why do we think no other country, not even Iran, is actually supporting these terrorist cowards, prepared to hide military units in hospitals against all the norms of conducting a war? Meanwhile the leaders aren’t anywhere to be seen, hiding in nice houses in safe Qatar away from the fighting.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    edited February 18
    The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.

    Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.

    But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.

    This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.

    It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,259
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    malcolmg said:

    There already was a 2-state solution: Gaza was effectively an independent state. Unfortunately most of its resources were dedicated to the destruction of its neighbour. Allowing Gaza the additional features of statehood it currently lacks (freedom of movement, weaponry of every description, a seat in the UN) would not address the underlying problem.

    Ehhhhhhhh
    sounds like reality to me , given Israel should never have allowed settlers to steal land. They shat in their own nest.
    It's actually a bit more complex than that: the settlers typically legally buy land. Then they demand that the Israeli state offers them all the protections and facilities of people inside Israel. This usually requires the Israeli army to move in, create new roads that only the settlers can use, and which often dissect or cut off existing villages and towns.

    And every time they do it, it creates another cadre of Palestinian martyrs.
    It’s now possible we can see what Israel intends to do long term. Drive all the Palestinians out of greater Israel

    That’s the only way to get security for themselves after October 7 - or so they perceive it (is my reading)

    Gaza will obviously be first. Then the West Bank

    Is anyone going to stop them? Maybe Iran if Iran acquires nukes. That would change everything

    Even the UK and Biden's US wouldn't support Israel doing that, albeit Trump might.

    Egypt and Jordan would also be opposed because of being swamped by Palestinian refugees and might even go to war with Israel again as a result. Iranians are Shia rather than Sunni Muslims which most Palestinians are albeit it does fund Hamas and would continue to do so
    Maybe

    But this seems - to me - to be the ultimate logic of Israel’s policies post October 7. Elimination of all threats from Palestinians

    That means removing them from “Israel”

    I am certainly not applauding this! Just trying to work out their strategy. I don’t think it is mindless cruelty or mere revenge - if you see this as their long term goal then Gaza makes a terrible kind of sense

    And they need to do it now or soon before Iran gets those nukes
    I don't know the Egyptian 1950-1980 narrative in detail, but given that was where the Muslim Brotherhood had its roots in the 1920s and 1930s, I am sure that it is juicy.

    Jordan welcomed Palestinian refugees after the 1967 Yom Kippur war, and gave them citizenship. The reward for Jordan was that part of its territory became a Palestinian (some factions, but the PLO would not control it) base for terrorist attacks on Israel.

    By 1970 elements within the PLO were aspiring to overthrow the Jordanian Government.

    So Jordan used their army to attack the fedayeen, and expelled the Palestinians, who went to Lebanon in the main. If they had waited much longer, the Govt would have been overthrown.

    So Palestinians will not be getting much of a welcome in either Jordan or Egypt, as those countries know what follows. If the Lebanese Govt was strong enough, they would not be getting a welcome in Lebanon either ... but Hezbollah, which is supported by Iran, and Syria.

    The key I think is Iran.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
    "Black September (Arabic: أيلول الأسود Aylūl al-ʾAswad), also known as the Jordanian Civil War, was an armed conflict between Jordan, led by King Hussein, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by chairman Yasser Arafat."
  • Leon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Don't be racist, skin colour is irrelevant.

    I am absolutely OK with them killing hundreds of thousands if that is what it takes to win the war.

    Just as we have killed hundreds of thousands before.

    Just as we killed millions seeking the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

    The war ends when Hamas is vanquished and does not exist anymore, when the threat is eliminated. Until then Israel has my unconditional support to do whatever it takes to achieve that ambition, within the rule of law.

    The rule of law does not require either zero civilian casualties, nor does it require a 1:1 death toll.
    Hundreds of thousands? There is no limit?

    What if Israel deems it is necessary to kill one million Gazans to exterminate Hamas? 50% of all Gazans?
    Its war. So long as they're sticking to the rules of law and war, if that is what it takes, that is what it takes.

    Was there a numerical limit to how many Germans or Japanese we were prepared to see die in WWII?

    So for everyone's sake let's hope it doesn't come to that, that Hamas unconditionally surrender and lay down their arms sooner. Or safe refuge is offered to civilians outside the war zone. I would completely prefer both of those alternatives to your suggested death toll which should be a last resort.
  • Leon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Don't be racist, skin colour is irrelevant.

    I am absolutely OK with them killing hundreds of thousands if that is what it takes to win the war.

    Just as we have killed hundreds of thousands before.

    Just as we killed millions seeking the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

    The war ends when Hamas is vanquished and does not exist anymore, when the threat is eliminated. Until then Israel has my unconditional support to do whatever it takes to achieve that ambition, within the rule of law.

    The rule of law does not require either zero civilian casualties, nor does it require a 1:1 death toll.
    Hundreds of thousands? There is no limit?

    What if Israel deems it is necessary to kill one million Gazans to exterminate Hamas? 50% of all Gazans?
    Besides, would that exterminate Hamas?

    The leadership aren't in Gaza, and the idea of Hamas is in countless heads across the world. The geometry of 1945 (encircle Nazis and push on until they control nothing) doesn't apply here, which limits what Israel can achieve.

    And "reasonable chance of success" is one of the criteria for just war.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
    No, a Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza, once freed from Hamas and an Israeli state on its current boundaries living side by side is the only hope for peace. The only other alternative is continued conflict between the 2
    In your mind for sure. But look, you just said Palestinians will sign up to your partition on Israel’s current boundaries, and be happy with that, with the goodwill to make it work, and there will be peace henceforth. You are clueless. You are delusional.

    You, like Cameron and Sunak, are lazy. You don’t really care about peace.
    Most would, certainly in the West Bank. Most Palestinians are not Hamas
    No. Certainly not West Bank Palestinians - they are the ones MOST opposed to your cunning plan for them.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
    No, a Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza, once freed from Hamas and an Israeli state on its current boundaries living side by side is the only hope for peace. The only other alternative is continued conflict between the 2
    In your mind for sure. But look, you just said Palestinians will sign up to your partition on Israel’s current boundaries, and be happy with that, with the goodwill to make it work, and there will be peace henceforth. You are clueless. You are delusional.

    You, like Cameron and Sunak, are lazy. You don’t really care about peace.
    The West can’t and won’t hold the solution to this. It’s up to the warring parties. I get that we have a moral imperative to both Israelis and Palestinians as a result of centuries of Jewish persecution leading up to the Holocaust, and the crude colonial settlements imposed on Arabs by Britain and France last century. But that’s an imperative to offer whatever support we can, not to come up with the answer.

    This like Northern Ireland or the former Yugoslavia or Armenia/Azerbaijan is a conflict with bad guys on both sides, justifiable claims on both sides too, and two civilian populations that are both caught in the crossfire, and also - at least in part - giving moral support to their bad guys.

    Just like those two cases, until children stop being taught selective history and that the other side are evil, at home and at school, the conflict will keep going generation after generation.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,453

    Leon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Don't be racist, skin colour is irrelevant.

    I am absolutely OK with them killing hundreds of thousands if that is what it takes to win the war.

    Just as we have killed hundreds of thousands before.

    Just as we killed millions seeking the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

    The war ends when Hamas is vanquished and does not exist anymore, when the threat is eliminated. Until then Israel has my unconditional support to do whatever it takes to achieve that ambition, within the rule of law.

    The rule of law does not require either zero civilian casualties, nor does it require a 1:1 death toll.
    Hundreds of thousands? There is no limit?

    What if Israel deems it is necessary to kill one million Gazans to exterminate Hamas? 50% of all Gazans?
    Besides, would that exterminate Hamas?

    The leadership aren't in Gaza, and the idea of Hamas is in countless heads across the world. The geometry of 1945 (encircle Nazis and push on until they control nothing) doesn't apply here, which limits what Israel can achieve.

    And "reasonable chance of success" is one of the criteria for just war.
    The whole argument is too bleak for this late on a sober Sunday evening (in Indochina). I’m going to watch For All Mankind then get some kip

    Night night and salaam
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,780
    There is an insightful podcast with Fiona Hill on the situation in Ukraine. Her position is that Europe needs get its act together in providing ammunition, and that no deal can be done with Russia, but also that the threat from Russia is not really that great (the current fear of war of WW3 with Russia being a kremlin induced panic), and that Russia has a whole host of its own mounting problems. I think this is all probably correct, Russia can only remain 'stopped' whilst there is no possibility of advancement, whilst at present it thinks it can.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ygPX-ZgM6w
  • Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Terrorists are terrorists, and they come in all shapes, sizes, and colours.
    Who are the real terrorists?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    I sympathise with Israel for the appalling attack.

    But their government is run by a facist bully and coward who is doing everything to cause maximum loss of life to innocent people.

    So for that reason I have chosen to sit on the fence. There will be no solution until the Israeli people hopefully vote Netanyahu out.

    "When we win this war, Bibi will punish those who called him out, what is your name?"

    "Don't tell him Horse!"
    what sort of politics, and person, is -

    "their government is run by a facist bully and coward who is doing everything to cause maximum loss of life to innocent people. So for that reason I have chosen to sit on the fence."

    🤷‍♀️
  • Leon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Don't be racist, skin colour is irrelevant.

    I am absolutely OK with them killing hundreds of thousands if that is what it takes to win the war.

    Just as we have killed hundreds of thousands before.

    Just as we killed millions seeking the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

    The war ends when Hamas is vanquished and does not exist anymore, when the threat is eliminated. Until then Israel has my unconditional support to do whatever it takes to achieve that ambition, within the rule of law.

    The rule of law does not require either zero civilian casualties, nor does it require a 1:1 death toll.
    Hundreds of thousands? There is no limit?

    What if Israel deems it is necessary to kill one million Gazans to exterminate Hamas? 50% of all Gazans?
    Besides, would that exterminate Hamas?

    The leadership aren't in Gaza, and the idea of Hamas is in countless heads across the world. The geometry of 1945 (encircle Nazis and push on until they control nothing) doesn't apply here, which limits what Israel can achieve.

    And "reasonable chance of success" is one of the criteria for just war.
    Keep killing everyone who is fighting until nobody is.

    If everyone has laid down their arms and there's no more fighting, the war is over. If the fighting goes on, the fighting goes on, until there's unconditional surrender.

    If it was good enough to demand from Germany and Japan, it's good enough to demand from Hamas too. Unconditional surrender, that's all I think Israel should demand.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,114
    edited February 18
    darkage said:

    There is an insightful podcast with Fiona Hill on the situation in Ukraine. Her position is that Europe needs get its act together in providing ammunition, and that no deal can be done with Russia, but also that the threat from Russia is not really that great (the current fear of war of WW3 with Russia being a kremlin induced panic), and that Russia has a whole host of its own mounting problems. I think this is all probably correct, Russia can only remain 'stopped' whilst there is no possibility of advancement, whilst at present it thinks it can.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ygPX-ZgM6w

    And the fucking Russians are currently illegally occupying TWENTY times as much territory as the Israelis!

    Not just eastern Ukraine and Crimea
    Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Georgia)
    Transnistria (Moldova)
    South Kuril Islands (Japan)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880

    Leon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Don't be racist, skin colour is irrelevant.

    I am absolutely OK with them killing hundreds of thousands if that is what it takes to win the war.

    Just as we have killed hundreds of thousands before.

    Just as we killed millions seeking the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

    The war ends when Hamas is vanquished and does not exist anymore, when the threat is eliminated. Until then Israel has my unconditional support to do whatever it takes to achieve that ambition, within the rule of law.

    The rule of law does not require either zero civilian casualties, nor does it require a 1:1 death toll.
    Hundreds of thousands? There is no limit?

    What if Israel deems it is necessary to kill one million Gazans to exterminate Hamas? 50% of all Gazans?
    Its war. So long as they're sticking to the rules of law and war, if that is what it takes, that is what it takes.

    Was there a numerical limit to how many Germans or Japanese we were prepared to see die in WWII?

    So for everyone's sake let's hope it doesn't come to that, that Hamas unconditionally surrender and lay down their arms sooner. Or safe refuge is offered to civilians outside the war zone. I would completely prefer both of those alternatives to your suggested death toll which should be a last resort.
    This is where you and I part company:

    We eliminated Nazis not just by defeating Nazi Germany and killings its leadership, but by offering Germans a better future on the other side.

    The West - principally the US - ploughed in billions into rebuilding Europe, especially Germany. It was the very opposite of the First World War Versailles strategy where the loser paid for the war. Here, the loser was paid.

    But it worked. And it worked because the victors so obviously cared for the defeated.

    I'm not sure that applies here. I don't think an Israeli government supported by Settler parties is going to do anything other than level Gaza and leave even more resentment and hatred of Israel.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that

    Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.

    So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.

    Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.

    So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?

    With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?

    Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.

    2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.

    The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
    No, a Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza, once freed from Hamas and an Israeli state on its current boundaries living side by side is the only hope for peace. The only other alternative is continued conflict between the 2
    In your mind for sure. But look, you just said Palestinians will sign up to your partition on Israel’s current boundaries, and be happy with that, with the goodwill to make it work, and there will be peace henceforth. You are clueless. You are delusional.

    You, like Cameron and Sunak, are lazy. You don’t really care about peace.
    Most would, certainly in the West Bank. Most Palestinians are not Hamas
    No. Certainly not West Bank Palestinians - they are the ones MOST opposed to your cunning plan for them.
    59% of Palestinians supported it ten years ago, the only other alternative of course is permanent war between Israel and Palestine
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/israel-palestine-is-the-two-state-solution-the-answer-to-the-crisis
  • Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Terrorists are terrorists, and they come in all shapes, sizes, and colours.
    Who are the real terrorists?
    Hamas.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,168
    Yawn. Too boring.

    There are about 426 foreign policy issues I care about more than Israel/Gaza, and even then I reckon I still wouldn't care.

    It'd be nice if one side had total victory - just so we never had to hear about it ever again.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,323
    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    We must be hallucinating the rockets fired into Israel then, and what happened on 7 October. What a ridiculous thing to say. Or the hoards of weapons found.

    Oh Hamas are fighting alright, they are just fighting a version of a guerrilla war and utilising their tunnel network. But it means trying to conserve resources, maintain strategic positions and make it difficult for Israel to reach its goals without consequences that will be deemed unacceptable. Rather than attacking in ways that might inflict more casualties but result in losses Hamas cannot survive. Bear in mind a 'win' for Hamas is any conclusion to the conflict that leaves them intact in some way.

    Israel for their part lost so few soldiers as they are acutely aware of the dangers and have adopted conservative tactics in terms of advancing only when can be certain most threats have been neutralised.

    Which isn't great for civilians.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,127

    The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.

    Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.

    But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.

    This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.

    It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱

    One more fragment of evidence in favour of your hypothesis: the continual stalling by the Government over the date and location of the fourth summit of the European Political Community, which the UK is meant to be hosting this Spring.

    A giveaway in the March budget - some kind of tax cut, possibly a surprise bribe for pensioners - would certainly act as a springboard from which to launch a campaign, too. Announcing fresh austerity and tax cuts then challenging Labour to oppose is a valid strategy for the Tories; much polling evidence suggests that voters cleave more to prioritising spending on public services, but most people are also fundamentally selfish. They welcome more money for themselves, whilst expecting other people to fund the extra spending, and a lot of traditional Tory voters will be thrilled if offered a penny or two off income tax paid for by battering social security claimants.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,847
    edited February 18

    isam said:

    @CorrectHorseBattery and many others said it was only a matter of time before Johnson was caught out. Those who had watched him in London knew that it was a matter of when, not if. So I agree with the commentary above.

    I do think the odds of a Labour victory were always underpriced after GE19.

    Correct Horse Battery thought NOM was a certainty in 2019 because turnout was brisk in Putney
    He never said that was why NOM was a certainty. He believed the circumstances in 2017 would repeat, with Johnson coming unstuck and Corbyn outperforming. He was wrong and has said so. I think that deserves credit instead of piss-taking as usual from you.

    But then you're never admitted to being wrong about anything and never resisted the urge to lie in every post you make, so what is going to change now?
    In that case, hearty congratulations to him for calling it completely wrong, medals for everyone!

    Give him a bonus badge for saying the Red Wall wouldn’t crumble too
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,757
    edited February 18

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.

    Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot

    An ad from a hopeful Presidential candidate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ui5_Pwg7KU
    Don't lie, they have tons of serious weapons and are fighting too.
    Merkava Tanks?
    F-16s?
    Saar Gunboats?
    Guns.
    Bullets.
    Missiles.
    Rockets.
    Explosives.

    Anything that kills is a serious weapon. Especially in war. You have no right to fight on equal terms.
    You, along with several other PBers, seem to absolutely OK with Israel killing of THOUSANDS of dark skinned people.
    Terrorists are terrorists, and they come in all shapes, sizes, and colours.
    Who are the real terrorists?
    In this war, Hamas, the proscribed terrorist organisation who escalated the war with the totally unjustified terrorist attacks on 7th October. The deliberate targeting of civilians, for example sending paratroopers to shoot up a music festival, is a war crime.
This discussion has been closed.