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?
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.
The only plan on the table is gibberish - so gibberish it has to be then.
Oh Stu! 🙄
1) the two state partition doesn’t create peace. 2) when you start to draw a partition line, you realise you haven’t a clue where it goes. 3) you don’t have either side in the dispute wanting your solution, even the more moderate voices on each side Don’t agree with it.
Don’t forget “I can’t apologise for getting rid of Saddam” but, what about the complete and utter not a scoobies what to do after getting rid of Saddam. let that example of the last Labour government’s monumental screw up chasten posts like yours here in this current situation.
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
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.
Hmm, whilst that's sort of true we didn't reveal our hand on it until after the Nazis were defeated.
Indeed, for some time, the Morgenthau Plan was under serious discussion which included deindustrialising Germany and carving it up like a roast.
The reasons lots of Nazis came over to the Allies, right at the very end, when they knew the game was up, was because they calculated we couldn't be any worse than the Soviets, who they were terrified of.
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. 🥱
Very interesting point on boats this summer. The lag between a bumper year in the Med and a big channel crossing season the following year.
Assuming this to be true (I’ve not gone back and checked the 2023 Med numbers or that historical correlation you posit), what can government do?
- Attempt a deterrent (ie Rwanda). Not happening in 2024 and questionable whether it ever would be at a scale able to deter - Deliberately open up the sluice gates a little at the Chunnel and ferry ports, making stowaway a better option than small boats. Helps the optics but risk of being rumbled - just one whistleblower and you’re toast - Open up legal asylum routes from Europe: kills the boats route stone dead but not politically palatable for the government - Speed up processing of existing backlog: helps with some of the pressure on infrastructure but doesn’t change the new boat numbers
There is no silver bullet if they won’t open legal routes, so that just leaves them with more policing, more money and cooperation with France, and faster processing, ie pretty much the Labour policy which might help but won’t dramatically change things in one season.
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.
An interesting interview from the Telegraph with Justin Welby ABC, after his recent visit to Ukraine, about reconciliation and where it fits, sometimes eventually.
Welby was Director of the International Centre for Reconciliation at Coventry Cathedral for 5 years from 2002-2007. The name now most associated with the ICRC is probably Canon Paul Oestreicher, who escaped Germany in 1938, and lead the centre from 1985 to 1997. He is now 92.
That was a reconciliation organisation created after a sermon by the Provost of Coventry Cathedral on Christmas Day, 1940. Just one more of the ways in which this country thought about post-WW2 whilst the war was still in full swing - a model Ukraine is following.
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
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.
Hmm, whilst that's sort of true we didn't reveal our hand on it until after the Nazis were defeated.
Indeed, for some time, the Morgenthau Plan was under serious discussion which included deindustrialising Germany and carving it up like a roast.
The reasons lots of Nazis came over to the Allies, right at the very end, when they knew the game was up, was because they calculated we couldn't be any worse than the Soviets, who they were terrified of.
There’s quite a compelling case that the Soviet threat really helped to cement Western European peace.
This is where aliens come in now. We need them threatening imminent invasion with space lasers in order to secure world peace.
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
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.
WW2 also ended with the ethnic cleansing of millions of Germans from Eastern Europe. It was a far more costly defeat for them in every sense than WW1 was.
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
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.
Hmm, whilst that's sort of true we didn't reveal our hand on it until after the Nazis were defeated.
Indeed, for some time, the Morgenthau Plan was under serious discussion which included deindustrialising Germany and carving it up like a roast.
The reasons lots of Nazis came over to the Allies, right at the very end, when they knew the game was up, was because they calculated we couldn't be any worse than the Soviets, who they were terrified of.
There’s quite a compelling case that the Soviet threat really helped to cement Western European peace.
This is where aliens come in now. We need them threatening imminent invasion with space lasers in order to secure world peace.
There can be no peace until Hamas is defeated. They instigated the breaking of the ceasefire supported by the people of Gaza and the UN. Israel has every right to protect itself from this existential threat, if Hamas refuse to surrender then the people of Gaza will continue to pay for their support of Hamas.
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
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.
Hmm, whilst that's sort of true we didn't reveal our hand on it until after the Nazis were defeated.
Indeed, for some time, the Morgenthau Plan was under serious discussion which included deindustrialising Germany and carving it up like a roast.
The reasons lots of Nazis came over to the Allies, right at the very end, when they knew the game was up, was because they calculated we couldn't be any worse than the Soviets, who they were terrified of.
There’s quite a compelling case that the Soviet threat really helped to cement Western European peace.
This is where aliens come in now. We need them threatening imminent invasion with space lasers in order to secure world peace.
"You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!"
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.
Impossible. Israel is too powerful to be overrun and too small to become an imperial overlord for the Near East.
The Israelis may be planning to drive the Gazan population into Egypt though. We certainly know that Egypt is making contingency plans to receive large volumes of Gazan refugees; most of Gaza has already been destroyed, so all those people currently camped out in Rafah have very little to go back to; if (or more likely when) the IDF invades Rafah, all those civilians are going to have to run or end up dead; and if all the Palestinians get driven en masse over the border then Hamas becomes the Egyptian army's security problem by default.
Looking at all of this from a purely political rather than a moral POV, mass expulsion has many attractions to the Israeli Government - not least that the far right religious loons that prop up the Netanyahu coalition will cream themselves with excitement at such a victory, and the opportunity to colonise the vacated ruins. Gaza down, just the remaining fragments of the West Bank left to go as far as they're concerned.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
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.
And Israel would have done that if the Palestinian negotiatiors hadn’t insisted on the right of return.
Not compensation. They wanted legal and physical ownership of property with the current owners dispossessed. That would have made the state of Israel non viable.
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
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.
We don't part ways actually there, I agree with you.
I would like to see a better future for Paleatine. One where they can build a brighter economic future.
Israel has believed in this too, if not under its current leadership who came to power after Hamas did.
More than two decades ago I saw Shimon Peres speak to the NUS Conference. He said that economics was the best way to build lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, where its more profitable to be living peacefully than fighting. I agreed with him then and I still do today.
I just don't think that development can happen while Gaza is (rightly) blockaded as its a Hamas fiefdom.
Rebuild Gaza, allow a bright future for Palestinians post Hamas. Hopefully eventually an independent state. But first things first, Hamas eliminated first, then reconstruction. Without the former, the latter is futile.
Which is why a ceasefire is the worst possible answer. Throwing Gaza back to a blockaded open air prison with no future and no access or egress to the wider world (by Egypt not just Israel) is no solution, but will be rightly required by both Israel AND Egypt if Hamas survive this.
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. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
I don’t get your point. The only other example known to me of knowing your are losing heavily and leaving government is 1997, and it’s known now hanging on till last moment lost them votes not gained them, largely due to the frustration that builds up from here not giving the country and its commerce the clarity it needs.
My point is clear. The bottom line is you pick the best possible day and moment to get the best possible result, whether your 10 points up, level, or ten points behind.
I don’t get this group think, Sunak and all his ministers and MPs are only in it for themselves, not their party. I don’t believe that. It’s bollocks. I believe they are all in on getting the best possible result from this mess of their own creation, to give their party best platform to bounce back next time.
Last year they would have sat down with every Thursday date, up to last one next January and narrowed it down based on modelling and issues controlling the narrative and have something on a grid to work to. You wouldn’t be picking May 2nd or date later in year about now, but months ago in order to shape the narrative yourself.
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.
I agree with everything you say apart from your completely and incomprehensible first sentence, which is completely out of synch with the humanity of the rest of what you say.
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
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
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.
But as ever, parallels fail.
I just listened to a podcast about the Houthis, so beloved by one of our members, and here's a sad fact:
There have been Jews in Yemen for over 2,500 years. In 2021, the last Jewish family were forced out by the Houthis, leaving only one Jew in Yemen.
NEW: Keir Starmer has called for a permanent Gaza ceasefire
“An end to the fighting, not just now, not just for a pause, but permanently. A ceasefire that lasts. Conference, that is what must happen now - the fighting must stop now.”
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
Ultimately the issue is that Gaza = Hamas. All of the reports from rescued and released hostages has shown the people of Gaza actively aid and support Hamas, the few who escaped were taken back to Hamas sites by civilians (and more disturbingly the UN). Gaza is a terrorist state with its sole intent being the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. We always say that Nazi Germany was never supported by most Germans but they just got carried along by the 10% who energised another 30-40%, the issue in Gaza is that it's 60-70% that actively support Hamas and its aims.
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.
It's interesting that she says the idea that the Baltics are next or that they'll use nuclear weapons is Russian propaganda designed to unsettle everyone. Food for thought for @Cicero ?
NEW: Keir Starmer has called for a permanent Gaza ceasefire
“An end to the fighting, not just now, not just for a pause, but permanently. A ceasefire that lasts. Conference, that is what must happen now - the fighting must stop now.”
Seriously, if he had just done this months ago the fighting would have stopped. It’s what Netanyahu and Hamas needed to hear as there is no greater influence on the Middle East than the leader of the opposition in a country that has very little influence and affection in the region.
Maybe he can fly out tomorrow and buy them all a coke and a song to sing.
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.
Another new one added to the list today, is if they go beyond May 2nd, is the voters are expecting a happy and speedy outcome for the post masters and mistresses wronged in the biggest government cover up scandal UK has ever seen. Voters expecting action on this soon not least because Sunak jolly well properly promised it.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
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. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
We shall find out soon if it is 2nd May. It has to be called by about 25th March, which is not long.
As to running up to the deadline, I doubt if Rishi wants to call an election just before Christmas, (17th December is the final date), campaigning over Christmas, which eliminates a long period, meaning it has to be done well before Christmas.
A bit before the deadline would of course immediately follow the POTUS election, the outcome of which is so fissile that no-one will want to risk being after it (5th November) So he has to go before that. Which means he has to be October or conceivably September (long shot but not quite impossible).
This of course is consistent both with Stuartinromford's sound analysis and with what Rishi has already 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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.
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
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.
The protesters wearing paratrooper badges at a pro palestine rally were - according to the judge - not actually supporters of Hamas so they don't need to be punished despite being guilty of a terrorism offence. Having seen the pictures I am just not sure how it is possible to come to that conclusion, but it doesn't surprise me, because like every other progressive or left wing cause, the establishment is sympathetic towards it, and they will find a benign solution to whatever is before them. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-68286945
(The situation for the 'far right' is of course completely different - 2x telegram posts encouraging 'extreme right wing terrorist attacks' got this guy four years and 6 months in jail) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-66000035
In this context you understand why Israel keeps going with its existential war against terror and humours or ignores whatever words of caution Lord Cameron comes out with.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.
NEW: Keir Starmer has called for a permanent Gaza ceasefire
“An end to the fighting, not just now, not just for a pause, but permanently. A ceasefire that lasts. Conference, that is what must happen now - the fighting must stop now.”
What Starmer was saying was entirely routine bombast; a ceasefire from both sides with no indication of how this is sequenced + 2 state solution. No change at all. This is motherhood and apple pie, without clarity as to whether apple pie precedes or follows motherhood. This is, of course exactly what he should be saying given he has no power or influence over the matter.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.
Wasn't that Spock?
Or perhaps something similar.
The Sign of Four. No doubt endlessly recycled. Probably also a song by Taylor Swift.
NEW: Keir Starmer has called for a permanent Gaza ceasefire
“An end to the fighting, not just now, not just for a pause, but permanently. A ceasefire that lasts. Conference, that is what must happen now - the fighting must stop now.”
Seriously, if he had just done this months ago the fighting would have stopped. It’s what Netanyahu and Hamas needed to hear as there is no greater influence on the Middle East than the leader of the opposition in a country that has very little influence and affection in the region.
Maybe he can fly out tomorrow and buy them all a coke and a song to sing.
Why didn’t he just ask Covid to go away four years ago? Maybe his plan for the economy is to tell inflation to fall and wages to rise
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
There's an interesting cross-current there that Iran is not Arab, and therefore not part of the Arab League either.
When I have sometimes followed some Iranian politics, there's quite a lot of anti-Arab stuff around.
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
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.
Try this to give you an idea of the difference between the two sides (if you can call them that) over the last 15 years. Unless you think Palestinians value their lives and the lives of their families less than others which I know to be incorrect then surely one or two things must pop out at you
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
Ultimately the issue is that Gaza = Hamas. All of the reports from rescued and released hostages has shown the people of Gaza actively aid and support Hamas, the few who escaped were taken back to Hamas sites by civilians (and more disturbingly the UN). Gaza is a terrorist state with its sole intent being the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. We always say that Nazi Germany was never supported by most Germans but they just got carried along by the 10% who energised another 30-40%, the issue in Gaza is that it's 60-70% that actively support Hamas and its aims.
Sometimes criticism of Russia's politics is heard from within Russia despite its well known dangers, eg of being killed. Never ever is criticism of Hamas reported from within Gaza - even by UN people, NGOs, or (when it had journalists in Gaza) the BBC. This is not coincidence.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
Footage of an armored Russian attack in Zaporizhzhia region. Several MBTs and IFVs were involved in this attack which ended in several vehicles being knocked out.
The most telling thing is, however, the usage of T-55 tanks which have not even the common upgrades such as ERA Kontakt bricks. It also proves that the Russian claim to use this vehicles as field artillery was a lie. Instead, they are used as common standard MBTs in which they are completely outdated.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
Britain increasingly resembles some kind of comic opera version of Soviet Russia, where the only way to make real money is via some cronyist sinecure in a “privatised” monopoly.
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
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.
Try this to give you an idea of the difference between the two sides (if you can call them that) over the last 15 years. Unless you think Palestinians value their lives and the lives of their families less than others which I know to be incorrect then surely one or two things must pop out at you
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
Ultimately the issue is that Gaza = Hamas. All of the reports from rescued and released hostages has shown the people of Gaza actively aid and support Hamas, the few who escaped were taken back to Hamas sites by civilians (and more disturbingly the UN). Gaza is a terrorist state with its sole being the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. We always say that Nazi Germany was never supported by most Germans but they just got carried along by the 10% who energised another 30-40%, the issue in Gaza is that it's 60-70% that actively support Hamas and its aims.
Yes, although when you dig deeper a lot of that support is due to fear / bribery / social pressure.
Reconstruction, reconciliation and education can build a new polity
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
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
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.
Try this to give you an idea of the difference between the two sides (if you can call them that) over the last 15 years. Unless you think Palestinians value their lives and the lives of their families less than others which I know to be incorrect then surely one or two things must pop out at you
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. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
There's always the case of Atlee in October 1951.
The Feb 1950 election had left him with a majority of 5 - but, since then, the Korean war and the decision to suddenly shift industrial production towards rearmament resulted in the first of the stop-go cycles that came to dominate the UK economy for the next 20 years.
Inflation began to roar, reaching 12% on the eve of the election. Rearmament had started the Bevan v Gaitskill split, and Labour's civil war was kicking off.
Atlee didn't believe an election would be winnable, but appears to have been pushed into calling one anyway by George VI who was due to go on a Commonwealth tour. It's said that he didn't want to leave the country when the government's majority was beginning to look so precarious.
It's instructive to compare that with today's situation. The Sunak government still has a solid majority, and the situation is nothing like the one Atlee found himself in. Why would he throw it away 8 months early?
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
I know someone who does maintenance work for leased trains.
Apparently its possible to earn over £100k doing so without working too hard.
Don't know who's 'fault' this is or even if there is any 'fault' applicable.
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
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.
But as ever, parallels fail.
I just listened to a podcast about the Houthis, so beloved by one of our members, and here's a sad fact:
There have been Jews in Yemen for over 2,500 years. In 2021, the last Jewish family were forced out by the Houthis, leaving only one Jew in Yemen.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
Yeah, and be a party to ethnic cleansing by the Nethanyahu regime. Why should they ?
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.
Wasn't that Spock?
Or perhaps something similar.
Holmes said it, or something similar, in The Sign of Four.
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
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.
Try this to give you an idea of the difference between the two sides (if you can call them that) over the last 15 years. Unless you think Palestinians value their lives and the lives of their families less than others which I know to be incorrect then surely one or two things must pop out at you
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
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.
Try this to give you an idea of the difference between the two sides (if you can call them that) over the last 15 years. Unless you think Palestinians value their lives and the lives of their families less than others which I know to be incorrect then surely one or two things must pop out at you
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · Feb 17 Angry Eric Trump: “My father built the skyline of New York City. And this is the thanks he gets?"
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 23h I grew up in New York City. I knew the skyline of New York City. Many people built the skyline of New York City. Donald Trump was not one of them.
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
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.
But as ever, parallels fail.
I just listened to a podcast about the Houthis, so beloved by one of our members, and here's a sad fact:
There have been Jews in Yemen for over 2,500 years. In 2021, the last Jewish family were forced out by the Houthis, leaving only one Jew in Yemen.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
Yeah, and be a party to ethnic cleansing by the Nethanyahu regime. Why should they ?
To save innocent civilians from being collateral damage during war.
The entire bloody point of having refugee status.
If Palestinians aren't eligible to get refuge during this war, then we should just abolish the idea of refugee status altogether.
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley declined Sunday to affirm that she would support former President Donald Trump if he were to become the GOP nominee for president again.
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
Then it will be Kamala Harris, as it won't be you.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · Feb 17 Angry Eric Trump: “My father built the skyline of New York City. And this is the thanks he gets?"
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 23h I grew up in New York City. I knew the skyline of New York City. Many people built the skyline of New York City. Donald Trump was not one of them.
Trump Tower seems to be the 102nd tallest building in New York City:
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
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.
But as ever, parallels fail.
I just listened to a podcast about the Houthis, so beloved by one of our members, and here's a sad fact:
There have been Jews in Yemen for over 2,500 years. In 2021, the last Jewish family were forced out by the Houthis, leaving only one Jew in Yemen.
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
‘Leading Democrats’, probably Harris herself. Getting the story planted in a tame press.
Mind you she can only surprise on the upside. Perhaps she will be good in the role should she get it.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
Yeah, and be a party to ethnic cleansing by the Nethanyahu regime. Why should they ?
To save innocent civilians from being collateral damage during war.
The entire bloody point of having refugee status.
If Palestinians aren't eligible to get refuge during this war, then we should just abolish the idea of refugee status altogether.
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
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.
But as ever, parallels fail.
I just listened to a podcast about the Houthis, so beloved by one of our members, and here's a sad fact:
There have been Jews in Yemen for over 2,500 years. In 2021, the last Jewish family were forced out by the Houthis, leaving only one Jew in Yemen.
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
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.
But as ever, parallels fail.
I just listened to a podcast about the Houthis, so beloved by one of our members, and here's a sad fact:
There have been Jews in Yemen for over 2,500 years. In 2021, the last Jewish family were forced out by the Houthis, leaving only one Jew in Yemen.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
Yeah, and be a party to ethnic cleansing by the Nethanyahu regime. Why should they ?
To save innocent civilians from being collateral damage during war.
The entire bloody point of having refugee status.
If Palestinians aren't eligible to get refuge during this war, then we should just abolish the idea of refugee status altogether.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
Yeah, and be a party to ethnic cleansing by the Nethanyahu regime. Why should they ?
To save innocent civilians from being collateral damage during war.
The entire bloody point of having refugee status.
If Palestinians aren't eligible to get refuge during this war, then we should just abolish the idea of refugee status altogether.
Like you give a shit.
Bartholomew seems to be a big fan of ethnic cleansing
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · Feb 17 Angry Eric Trump: “My father built the skyline of New York City. And this is the thanks he gets?"
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 23h I grew up in New York City. I knew the skyline of New York City. Many people built the skyline of New York City. Donald Trump was not one of them.
Trump Tower seems to be the 102nd tallest building in New York City:
Footage of an armored Russian attack in Zaporizhzhia region. Several MBTs and IFVs were involved in this attack which ended in several vehicles being knocked out.
The most telling thing is, however, the usage of T-55 tanks which have not even the common upgrades such as ERA Kontakt bricks. It also proves that the Russian claim to use this vehicles as field artillery was a lie. Instead, they are used as common standard MBTs in which they are completely outdated.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Same is true around the globe. Germans in Eastern Europe, Azebaijanis etc have not gone back. Jews too across the globe.
As for those who don't want to go, so long as each and every one of them lays down their arms and unconditionally stops fighting then there should be no more fighting.
If anyone continues to fight, then Israel should continue to seek to eliminate them. Innocents who choose to stay do so in full knowledge they may be collateral damage, but that is their choice and should be respected. If they are its sad, but its entirely Hamas's fault.
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
She's still a decent price.
What a pay day I would get if it is either of these two ladies. Make it so.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
Yeah, and be a party to ethnic cleansing by the Nethanyahu regime. Why should they ?
To save innocent civilians from being collateral damage during war.
The entire bloody point of having refugee status.
If Palestinians aren't eligible to get refuge during this war, then we should just abolish the idea of refugee status altogether.
Like you give a shit.
More of a shit than you give about Israel.
I have seldom commented on this conflict and you most certainly don’t know my view on israel or Hamas. As I’ve not really got into it.
You’ve posted more about it in a day than I have since the conflict started.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
Yeah, and be a party to ethnic cleansing by the Nethanyahu regime. Why should they ?
To save innocent civilians from being collateral damage during war.
The entire bloody point of having refugee status.
If Palestinians aren't eligible to get refuge during this war, then we should just abolish the idea of refugee status altogether.
Like you give a shit.
Bartholomew seems to be a big fan of ethnic cleansing
No wonder he stopped posting under his real name. He’s an idiot.
Mind you I should have realised that when he told me I was a putinist for not wanting British troops in Ukraine.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.
Wasn't that Spock?
Or perhaps something similar.
Holmes said it, or something similar, in The Sign of Four.
Star Trek 6: Spock on board the Enterprise following Kirk/McCoy's arrest. “An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution.”
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Wasn’t it May’s plan that got kiboshed by Boris? The “Five Eyes” grouping doesn’t conflict with NATO and if done right would make sense - as long as it doesn’t become some bullshit issue where European countries demand that their kit is used to bolster their arms industries it is worth doing.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
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
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.
Hmm, whilst that's sort of true we didn't reveal our hand on it until after the Nazis were defeated.
Indeed, for some time, the Morgenthau Plan was under serious discussion which included deindustrialising Germany and carving it up like a roast.
The reasons lots of Nazis came over to the Allies, right at the very end, when they knew the game was up, was because they calculated we couldn't be any worse than the Soviets, who they were terrified of.
A calculation which remains valid eight decades later.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.
Wasn't that Spock?
Or perhaps something similar.
Holmes said it, or something similar, in The Sign of Four.
Star Trek 6: Spock on board the Enterprise following Kirk/McCoy's arrest. “An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution.”
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
My definition was essentially finding them somewhere to have a permanent state of their own. If they are forced into refugee camps in Egypt, for example, that solves nothing
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
The problem is that you cannot have it both ways. The Class 141/142 Pacers (PBUH) were widely derided at the time of their final withdrawal ~2020; but they were all the government allowed BR to build. A situation that had gone back a couple of decades for a number of reasons (stock built after the 1955 modernisation plan getting to end-of-life being one of them).
The ROSCOs acted as a good barrier against the DfT and Treasury; since the latter two have gained more control, the trains have got worse (Azumas, anyone?)
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Railways in Ireland (this was pre-partition, remember) were built and operated on the same model as the pre-grouping railways in GB - indeed, Irish sister companies of the Midland Railway and GNR were two of the biggest players.
One slight wrinkle was that they tended to have 99 year leases on the land they used, rather than 999 years in GB. The expense of renewing these leases was part of the reason for cuts in the 1950s that were even more savage than the 1960s Beeching Axe.
What's left is still publicly owned and operated (on both sides of the border). Not sure that they're much of a model to follow, though - the state of NI Railways makes privatisation look like a genius idea!
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
She's still a decent price.
What a pay day I would get if it is either of these two ladies. Make it so.
Make it so?
Maybe we should have Ensign Ro Laren v. Commander Shelby.
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
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.
WW2 also ended with the ethnic cleansing of millions of Germans from Eastern Europe. It was a far more costly defeat for them in every sense than WW1 was.
Which the Western allies weren’t keen on, but couldn’t do anything about.
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
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes.
Wasn't that Spock?
Or perhaps something similar.
Holmes said it, or something similar, in The Sign of Four.
Star Trek 6: Spock on board the Enterprise following Kirk/McCoy's arrest. “An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution.”
Sherlock is fictional in-universe. It wouldn't work. ACD is real in-universe, so it's consistent with the canon. Not that Trek has ever got canon totally consistent mind, but it's nice to try.
Watched another Storyville last night called the Blue Box and the efforts by Jews to buy up what is now Israel and then the Transfer after the 1948 war when 750k Palestinians were kicked out.
Probably the best documentary on this I have seen. Balanced, nuanced and ambivalent. Really worth a watch.
No doubt that Bibi is Ben Gurian’s true successor.
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Wasn’t it May’s plan that got kiboshed by Boris? The “Five Eyes” grouping doesn’t conflict with NATO and if done right would make sense - as long as it doesn’t become some bullshit issue where European countries demand that their kit is used to bolster their arms industries it is worth doing.
Edit to add, NORAD exists separate to NATO.
It’s not remotely contradictory, and indeed on the Fiona Hill podcast people were quoting earlier she was extolling sub-regional deals like this as a way of strengthening the deterrent in the face of a Trump presidency.
If America is about to leave the scene then we bloody well need deals like this. Plus a binding security alliance with Poland and one with France.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Jews
Oh Stu! 🙄
1) the two state partition doesn’t create peace.
2) when you start to draw a partition line, you realise you haven’t a clue where it goes.
3) you don’t have either side in the dispute wanting your solution, even the more moderate voices on each side Don’t agree with it.
Don’t forget “I can’t apologise for getting rid of Saddam” but, what about the complete and utter not a scoobies what to do after getting rid of Saddam. let that example of the last Labour government’s monumental screw up chasten posts like yours here in this current situation.
Indeed, for some time, the Morgenthau Plan was under serious discussion which included deindustrialising Germany and carving it up like a roast.
The reasons lots of Nazis came over to the Allies, right at the very end, when they knew the game was up, was because they calculated we couldn't be any worse than the Soviets, who they were terrified of.
Assuming this to be true (I’ve not gone back and checked the 2023 Med numbers or that historical correlation you posit), what can government do?
- Attempt a deterrent (ie Rwanda). Not happening in 2024 and questionable whether it ever would be at a scale able to deter
- Deliberately open up the sluice gates a little at the Chunnel and ferry ports, making stowaway a better option than small boats. Helps the optics but risk of being rumbled - just one whistleblower and you’re toast
- Open up legal asylum routes from Europe: kills the boats route stone dead but not politically palatable for the government
- Speed up processing of existing backlog: helps with some of the pressure on infrastructure but doesn’t change the new boat numbers
There is no silver bullet if they won’t open legal routes, so that just leaves them with more policing, more money and cooperation with France, and faster processing, ie pretty much the Labour policy which might help but won’t dramatically change things in one season.
Welby was Director of the International Centre for Reconciliation at Coventry Cathedral for 5 years from 2002-2007. The name now most associated with the ICRC is probably Canon Paul Oestreicher, who escaped Germany in 1938, and lead the centre from 1985 to 1997. He is now 92.
That was a reconciliation organisation created after a sermon by the Provost of Coventry Cathedral on Christmas Day, 1940. Just one more of the ways in which this country thought about post-WW2 whilst the war was still in full swing - a model Ukraine is following.
20 minutes in length.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YglYKzMvZ7Y
This is where aliens come in now. We need them threatening imminent invasion with space lasers in order to secure world peace.
The Israelis may be planning to drive the Gazan population into Egypt though. We certainly know that Egypt is making contingency plans to receive large volumes of Gazan refugees; most of Gaza has already been destroyed, so all those people currently camped out in Rafah have very little to go back to; if (or more likely when) the IDF invades Rafah, all those civilians are going to have to run or end up dead; and if all the Palestinians get driven en masse over the border then Hamas becomes the Egyptian army's security problem by default.
Looking at all of this from a purely political rather than a moral POV, mass expulsion has many attractions to the Israeli Government - not least that the far right religious loons that prop up the Netanyahu coalition will cream themselves with excitement at such a victory, and the opportunity to colonise the vacated ruins. Gaza down, just the remaining fragments of the West Bank left to go as far as they're concerned.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
Not compensation. They wanted legal and physical ownership of property with the current owners dispossessed. That would have made the state of Israel non viable.
I would like to see a better future for Paleatine. One where they can build a brighter economic future.
Israel has believed in this too, if not under its current leadership who came to power after Hamas did.
More than two decades ago I saw Shimon Peres speak to the NUS Conference. He said that economics was the best way to build lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, where its more profitable to be living peacefully than fighting. I agreed with him then and I still do today.
I just don't think that development can happen while Gaza is (rightly) blockaded as its a Hamas fiefdom.
Rebuild Gaza, allow a bright future for Palestinians post Hamas. Hopefully eventually an independent state. But first things first, Hamas eliminated first, then reconstruction. Without the former, the latter is futile.
Which is why a ceasefire is the worst possible answer. Throwing Gaza back to a blockaded open air prison with no future and no access or egress to the wider world (by Egypt not just Israel) is no solution, but will be rightly required by both Israel AND Egypt if Hamas survive this.
Give peace a chance, destroy Hamas.
My point is clear. The bottom line is you pick the best possible day and moment to get the best possible result, whether your 10 points up, level, or ten points behind.
I don’t get this group think, Sunak and all his ministers and MPs are only in it for themselves, not their party. I don’t believe that. It’s bollocks. I believe they are all in on getting the best possible result from this mess of their own creation, to give their party best platform to bounce back next time.
Last year they would have sat down with every Thursday date, up to last one next January and narrowed it down based on modelling and issues controlling the narrative and have something on a grid to work to. You wouldn’t be picking May 2nd or date later in year about now, but months ago in order to shape the narrative yourself.
I just listened to a podcast about the Houthis, so beloved by one of our members, and here's a sad fact:
There have been Jews in Yemen for over 2,500 years. In 2021, the last Jewish family were forced out by the Houthis, leaving only one Jew in Yemen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemenite_Jews
Israel has to exist, because the long history of Judaism shows that Jews will never be welcome long-term anywhere else.
NEW: Keir Starmer has called for a permanent Gaza ceasefire
“An end to the fighting, not just now, not just for a pause, but permanently. A ceasefire that lasts. Conference, that is what must happen now - the fighting must stop now.”
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1759257578297557278?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Can we give them all opium again so they're too stoned to do anything about it?
Maybe he can fly out tomorrow and buy them all a coke and a song to sing.
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-rishi-sunak-general-election-keir-starmer-12593360?postid=7249288#liveblog-body
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
As to running up to the deadline, I doubt if Rishi wants to call an election just before Christmas, (17th December is the final date), campaigning over Christmas, which eliminates a long period, meaning it has to be done well before Christmas.
A bit before the deadline would of course immediately follow the POTUS election, the outcome of which is so fissile that no-one will want to risk being after it (5th November) So he has to go before that. Which means he has to be October or conceivably September (long shot but not quite impossible).
This of course is consistent both with Stuartinromford's sound analysis and with what Rishi has already said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-68286945
(The situation for the 'far right' is of course completely different - 2x telegram posts encouraging 'extreme right wing terrorist attacks' got this guy four years and 6 months in jail)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-66000035
In this context you understand why Israel keeps going with its existential war against terror and humours or ignores whatever words of caution Lord Cameron comes out with.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
Or perhaps something similar.
How convenient that someone is building a new sci-fi city for 10m people nearby.
When I have sometimes followed some Iranian politics, there's quite a lot of anti-Arab stuff around.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/12/israel-hamas-war-data-shows-human-cost-of-conflict-through-the-years.html
There's been a 'peace dividend' of approximately 2% of GDP taken for the last three decades.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298527/defense-spending-as-share-of-gdp-united-kingdom-uk/#:~:text=Defense spending as share of GDP in the UK 1980-2021&text=In 2021, the United Kingdom's,was spent on the military.
Which would be about £50bn per year currently.
That would be able to fund a great deal of industrial investment.
So 2% to increase defence and industrial investment.
And then another 2-3% reduction in consumption to boost infrastructure and get rid of the trade deficit.
Which would leave the UK having personal consumption still higher than France:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/actualindividualconsumptionperheadintheuk/2020
Any political part willing to offer this ?
The most telling thing is, however, the usage of T-55 tanks which have not even the common upgrades such as ERA Kontakt bricks. It also proves that the Russian claim to use this vehicles as field artillery was a lie. Instead, they are used as common standard MBTs in which they are completely outdated.
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1759190874934685742?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
Interesting, if true.
Its the equivalent of using Sherman tanks to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Reconstruction, reconciliation and education can build a new polity
Thought experiment: so does that make the Israeli government antisemitic?
Humphrey: Ah, again? Bernard, tell him we spent it all on weapons
Which is absolutely no f***ing sh*t Sherlock territory.
That's the problem when one side are religious fanatics who think death means heaven and virgins.
The Feb 1950 election had left him with a majority of 5 - but, since then, the Korean war and the decision to suddenly shift industrial production towards rearmament resulted in the first of the stop-go cycles that came to dominate the UK economy for the next 20 years.
Inflation began to roar, reaching 12% on the eve of the election. Rearmament had started the Bevan v Gaitskill split, and Labour's civil war was kicking off.
Atlee didn't believe an election would be winnable, but appears to have been pushed into calling one anyway by George VI who was due to go on a Commonwealth tour. It's said that he didn't want to leave the country when the government's majority was beginning to look so precarious.
It's instructive to compare that with today's situation. The Sunak government still has a solid majority, and the situation is nothing like the one Atlee found himself in. Why would he throw it away 8 months early?
Apparently its possible to earn over £100k doing so without working too hard.
Don't know who's 'fault' this is or even if there is any 'fault' applicable.
https://edition.cnn.com/
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change
- Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
Feb 17
Angry Eric Trump: “My father built the skyline of New York City. And this is the thanks he gets?"
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
23h
I grew up in New York City. I knew the skyline of New York City. Many people built the skyline of New York City. Donald Trump was not one of them.
The entire bloody point of having refugee status.
If Palestinians aren't eligible to get refuge during this war, then we should just abolish the idea of refugee status altogether.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/18/haley-trump-gop-nomination-2024-00142063
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City
Mind you she can only surprise on the upside. Perhaps she will be good in the role should she get it.
Once cleansed they will never go back.
What about those who don’t want to go.
"Shabi identifies as an Arab Jew and has lamented the stigmatisation of Arab-Jewish culture in Israel.[10]"
Most, but sadly not all.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
As for those who don't want to go, so long as each and every one of them lays down their arms and unconditionally stops fighting then there should be no more fighting.
If anyone continues to fight, then Israel should continue to seek to eliminate them. Innocents who choose to stay do so in full knowledge they may be collateral damage, but that is their choice and should be respected. If they are its sad, but its entirely Hamas's fault.
I have seldom commented on this conflict and you most certainly don’t know my view on israel or Hamas. As I’ve not really got into it.
You’ve posted more about it in a day than I have since the conflict started.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the
chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
Mind you I should have realised that when he told me I was a putinist for not wanting British troops in Ukraine.
I’ll just ignore him from now on.
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
The fanon explanation is that Spock's human mother Amanda Grayson was a descendent of Arthur Conan Doyle.
Edit to add, NORAD exists separate to NATO.
We already now have a formal defence relationship with Ukraine. As do France and Germany.
Why not the EU ?
The ROSCOs acted as a good barrier against the DfT and Treasury; since the latter two have gained more control, the trains have got worse (Azumas, anyone?)
One slight wrinkle was that they tended to have 99 year leases on the land they used, rather than 999 years in GB. The expense of renewing these leases was part of the reason for cuts in the 1950s that were even more savage than the 1960s Beeching Axe.
What's left is still publicly owned and operated (on both sides of the border). Not sure that they're much of a model to follow, though - the state of NI Railways makes privatisation look like a genius idea!
Maybe we should have Ensign Ro Laren v. Commander Shelby.
Probably the best documentary on this I have seen. Balanced, nuanced and ambivalent. Really worth a watch.
No doubt that Bibi is Ben Gurian’s true successor.
If America is about to leave the scene then we bloody well need deals like this. Plus a binding security alliance with Poland and one with France.
You’d think they remove the scene of crime evidence first.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/144555146