To the British weather and railway system, I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
I've had quite a good experience of railways today. I did the Chase Line from New Street to Rugeley. Still waiting on those overhead cables so we can have our direct service to Euston, which was promised for this time last year.
Rugeley Trent Valley is ludicrous. Four platforms six tracks and ooh, tree trains an hour. If they bought the nearby field and put parking on it, it could be the best parkway in the Midlands. As it is, it's got no pedestrian access, no housing, and less parking than Rugeley Town - so it's a ghost station!
What was annoying is I dutifully forked out for returns from Cannock to BNS and Cannock to RTV - and then my ticket was only inspected once so I could have got away with a return from BNS to RTV at 60% of the price.
What boils my piss is ‘Trains cancelled due to excess heat’
We built the Cairo to Khartoum railway ferfuxsake.
Didn't we have a problem in 2003 with railway lines actually buckling in the heat?
I assume it's an Elf an Safety thing that the Chunnel can't run without it's air con given there's no outside supply?
The problem is not the extreme temperatures, it is the temperature ranges that the infrastructure is designed to cope with. The infrastructure has to cope with sustained subzero temperatures in winter and high temperatures in summer. Rails used to have gaps every sixty feet with expansion joints; modern continuous welded rail has a different system of expansion joints. But there is only so much expansion room you can put in.
Likewise, overhead line equipment has an expansion compensation system (I think the weights you see hanging every so often off the cables is part of it), but it can only cope with a certain range before problems set in.
We could optimise the system for higher temperatures, and then face more problems in winter.
... Indeed, we would all have been much better off, then and now, if Germany had been permanently divided into half-a-dozen small states after the War, and the population of one of them (e.g. Bavaria) had been removed en masse and resettled in the others, so as to give the Jews a homeland in Europe instead.
That would have resulted in a German victim myth larger than the one the Nazis used to explain WW1. We would not have had peace in Western Europe for a generation.
To the British weather and railway system, I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
Risked a further offensive, er, I mean advance, er, I mean sortie, er, I mean trip into Welsh Valleys today, trying the Aberdare branch, the last of the trio of lines I needed to do to the northwest of Cardiff. There was a bit of rain going both outward and return, but it could have been worse. Now need only the Ebbw Vale line, and Barry to Maesteg via Bridgend to do the whole set of lines in and around Cardiff (also have done the GWR main line as far west as Swansea).
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
Chiding liberals for supporting Israel when it was a plucky underdog then criticising it when it's strong and assertive was your construction. Personally I'm entirely happy to admire plucky underdogs and despise brutish bullies, even when they're different stages in the evolution(sic) of the same person/entity.
It's all about their view towards the Jews and why there is an elision between criticism of Jews and Israel. The Jews were granted a country formally by the UN and many (not, of course, the UK) supported that. Why? In part because the Jews had had a hell of a time and needed a break.
Since then the Jews have become stronger and, in your words, indiscriminately brutish. And hence the left is no longer a fan of Israel and that is where the elision comes in because after all, Israel is a Jewish country and hence the criticism of both as though they were the same thing. It of course extends to other strong Jews such as Soros et al.
The Left is the same with rich people who started off poor - they go from needing saving, and thereby providing a natural constituency for the Left, to being part of the Imperialist Capitalist Boss Class and therefore the enemy.
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
The problem is not the extreme temperatures, it is the temperature ranges that the infrastructure is designed to cope with. The infrastructure has to cope with sustained subzero temperatures in winter and high temperatures in summer. Rails used to have gaps every sixty feet with expansion joints; modern continuous welded rail has a different system of expansion joints. But there is only so much expansion room you can put in.
Likewise, overhead line equipment has an expansion compensation system (I think the weights you see hanging every so often off the cables is part of it), but it can only cope with a certain range before problems set in.
We could optimise the system for higher temperatures, and then face more problems in winter.
You say “consequences”; I say “mad ravings of a person who is no longer of any consequence”.
I think that's a little unfair. Dominic Cummings is obviously highly intelligent, though he mixes up astute observation with bizarre ravings. When reading his posts I always imagine them in the voice of Kevin Spacey narrating the diaries of John Doe in Se7en.
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
My tuppence worth: the Palestinian Arabs got an absolutely shit deal in 1948. It would've been better, had the British Government had both the ability and the willpower under the circumstances of the time to do something effective about it, if Israel had not been created in the form that it was. Indeed, we would all have been much better off, then and now, if Germany had been permanently divided into half-a-dozen small states after the War, and the population of one of them (e.g. Bavaria) had been removed en masse and resettled in the others, so as to give the Jews a homeland in Europe instead.
However, since we do not possess a Tardis we can hardly send 20,000 heavily armed troops and a warning note to Clem Attlee back in time to correct the problem. We must deal with things as they are, which starts by recognising that the State of Israel within the 1948 borders must - having been conceded its right to exist by the UN - be allowed to stand, and must have its continuing security guaranteed. That, in turn, means that the occupation of lands seized after subsequent Arab invasions of Israel can only be ended as part of a grand bargain in which, amongst other things, all of the neighbours (and other hostile, mainly Muslim, states further afield) recognise the right of Israel to exist and agree to normalise relations with it, and the Islamist terror groups (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) are rooted out, in exchange for decolonisation of the occupied territories so that a Palestinian state can be established.
Imagining how hard that list of objectives is going to be to achieve, how long that might take, and how much diplomatic and economic pressure might need to be brought to bear on both sides to force a resolution, is truly sobering. The job may not be completed in our lifetime. But there is no other way. And examining the issues and the history behind them might also lead one to conclude both that Israel itself is not entirely at fault for all of these problems, and that, in any event, trying to share out exact proportions of the total amount of blame to each of the parties involved isn't going to get anybody very far.
In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a big mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
To the British weather and railway system, I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
I've had quite a good experience of railways today. I did the Chase Line from New Street to Rugeley. Still waiting on those overhead cables so we can have our direct service to Euston, which was promised for this time last year.
Rugeley Trent Valley is ludicrous. Four platforms six tracks and ooh, tree trains an hour. If they bought the nearby field and put parking on it, it could be the best parkway in the Midlands. As it is, it's got no pedestrian access, no housing, and less parking than Rugeley Town - so it's a ghost station!
What was annoying is I dutifully forked out for returns from Cannock to BNS and Cannock to RTV - and then my ticket was only inspected once so I could have got away with a return from BNS to RTV at 60% of the price.
What boils my piss is ‘Trains cancelled due to excess heat’
We built the Cairo to Khartoum railway ferfuxsake.
Didn't we have a problem in 2003 with railway lines actually buckling in the heat?
I assume it's an Elf an Safety thing that the Chunnel can't run without it's air con given there's no outside supply?
We’ve had that this year.
Direct sunshine on a metal rail when it’s 30C can actually heat it to 50-70C causing it to expand and warp and necessitating temporary speed restrictions for safety reasons.
That Hoey couldn't find a single Labour member to vote against her No Confidence motion is pretty telling though. She is toast, and rightly so.
What was she doing in the Labour Party in the first place ? I am sure she will find like-minded people in the DUP or the Conservative Party or UKIP.
Party's change position over time, so even if someone was on the outliers previously, they wouldn't necessarily be ridiculous outliers. Plus people change. And, yes, there's probably a few who really are in the wrong party altogether, ideologically speaking, even allowing for a coalition of views, but they don't think of it that way because it doesn't fit their self image.
I wouldn't mind Heidi Allen in my party !!!!!!
Heidi Allen is my MP! At the end of last year I had her laughing at me and my son in the local Morrisons ...
I have read many of Cyclefree's rants . Forgive me, if I missed any mention of Palestinians being paid reparations for seizing their lands illegally and Israels soldiers receiving correct custodial sentences for killing Palestinians and not 9 months when 8 months was given to a teenage Palestinian girl for slapping an Israeli soldier.
It is you who is blind ! You cannot bring yourself to criticise the illegal occupation under International Law of Palestinian lands.
I've mentioned some of this stuff previously on here; in fact, many times.
There's another angle to this: there are no 'angels' in the Middle East, country-wise - which is quite annoying given he area's religious history!
Israel can behave terribly - but so have the Palestinians and the surrounding countries. The violence and extremism on both main sides of the conflict have fed each other, and it can be argued that only the extreme actions of the Israeli government - such as building the wall - have stopped most of the terrorism against them.
For instance, it might be helpful for the Palestinians to stop their rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, which continue on into this year - 174 a fortnight ago alone.
To make matters worse, other countries in the region, and in the wider world, have used the sides - and especially the Palestinians - for their own purposes. In many cases it has not been in their interests for there to be peace.
If you are truly interested in peace in the region - and that means peace for Jew, Palestinian, Christian and everyone else - then you have to criticise all sides when they do wrong, and praise them when they do right.
Labour fails on this count as well.
A long email. Yet you fail to mention land being seized illegally, reparations to be paid. I am not sure why Jews were paid reparations [ absolutely correctly ] but Palestinians should not be.
Ignoring points you don’t like is your raison d’etre.
Just how deep is the well of pig-shit thick Labour candidates?
And has no-one vetting candidates at Labour HQ even learnt to switch on a computer?
There’s definitely a good business model in doing online vetting of political candidates. The difficulty is in persuading the major parties that it’s necessary, luckily every day brings more evidence to help the case.
What is it with these people and IT skills?
The chap says he was hacked. It seems the hacker posted antisemitic content secretly to the chap's account over a 3 year period without the chappie noticing. Hmmm.
O/T I've just purchased 310 euro for £301 in preparation for a holiday in Ireland. So much for a weak euro and a disaster of a currency. How long will it be before the GB pound earns that "accolade"?
It is just possible that the perennial PB Briteer proclamations of the collapse of the Eurozone exist in the same as Fox's trade deals.
1999: £1 = € 1.43. 2018: £1 = €1.12
Only one currency has imploded in the last 19 years - it is NOT the EURO.
Never mind 1999, you could get 1.4 or better throughout most of 2015. I know because I put a fair bit into a Euro account that year, the last of which I will be spending in Italy this September.
If we have a NO Deal then there will be another collapse of the pound to below parity.
We will desperately need it to be competitive in the EU after duties are imposed. Many of their exports will also suffer but not by the same margins. After all, if you want to drive a BMW, what do you do ?
I have read many of Cyclefree's rants . Forgive me, if I missed any mention of Palestinians being paid reparations for seizing their lands illegally and Israels soldiers receiving correct custodial sentences for killing Palestinians and not 9 months when 8 months was given to a teenage Palestinian girl for slapping an Israeli soldier.
It is you who is blind ! You cannot bring yourself to criticise the illegal occupation under International Law of Palestinian lands.
I've mentioned some of this stuff previously on here; in fact, many times.
There's another angle to this: there are no 'angels' in the Middle East, country-wise - which is quite annoying given he area's religious history!
Israel can behave terribly - but so have the Palestinians and the surrounding countries. The violence and extremism on both main sides of the conflict have fed each other, and it can be argued that only the extreme actions of the Israeli government - such as building the wall - have stopped most of the terrorism against them.
For instance, it might be helpful for the Palestinians to stop their rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, which continue on into this year - 174 a fortnight ago alone.
To make matters worse, other countries in the region, and in the wider world, have used the sides - and especially the Palestinians - for their own purposes. In many cases it has not been in their interests for there to be peace.
If you are truly interested in peace in the region - and that means peace for Jew, Palestinian, Christian and everyone else - then you have to criticise all sides when they do wrong, and praise them when they do right.
Labour fails on this count as well.
A long email. Yet you fail to mention land being seized illegally, reparations to be paid. I am not sure why Jews were paid reparations [ absolutely correctly ] but Palestinians should not be.
1) It was a post, not an email. 2) And you utterly fail to address my post. It's almost as though you've responded to a different email post ...
As a politician he was not somebody that I liked let alone respected, but I heard him interviewed at lunchtime on TMS after his election defeat. He was very reasonable, I would say likeable. I will watch his TV show, I think it should be good viewing.
... Indeed, we would all have been much better off, then and now, if Germany had been permanently divided into half-a-dozen small states after the War, and the population of one of them (e.g. Bavaria) had been removed en masse and resettled in the others, so as to give the Jews a homeland in Europe instead.
That would have resulted in a German victim myth larger than the one the Nazis used to explain WW1. We would not have had peace in Western Europe for a generation.
About 7 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from former German territory given to Poland at the end of and after World War II: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II . So, without supporting Acorn_Antiques unorthodox suggestion, the en masse expulsion of Germans did happen, did not produce a victim myth and is almost unknown here in the UK.
O/T I've just purchased 310 euro for £301 in preparation for a holiday in Ireland. So much for a weak euro and a disaster of a currency. How long will it be before the GB pound earns that "accolade"?
It is just possible that the perennial PB Briteer proclamations of the collapse of the Eurozone exist in the same as Fox's trade deals.
1999: £1 = € 1.43. 2018: £1 = €1.12
Only one currency has imploded in the last 19 years - it is NOT the EURO.
Never mind 1999, you could get 1.4 or better throughout most of 2015. I know because I put a fair bit into a Euro account that year, the last of which I will be spending in Italy this September.
If we have a NO Deal then there will be another collapse of the pound to below parity.
We will desperately need it to be competitive in the EU after duties are imposed. Many of their exports will also suffer but not by the same margins. After all, if you want to drive a BMW, what do you do ?
... Indeed, we would all have been much better off, then and now, if Germany had been permanently divided into half-a-dozen small states after the War, and the population of one of them (e.g. Bavaria) had been removed en masse and resettled in the others, so as to give the Jews a homeland in Europe instead.
That would have resulted in a German victim myth larger than the one the Nazis used to explain WW1. We would not have had peace in Western Europe for a generation.
All of the Germans to the East of the Oder-Neisse line were driven out by the Soviets in 1945 to make room for the Poles. That clearly didn't create the issue you describe. Once the dust had settled they didn't set about blaming the Soviet Union for kicking their backsides at the time, and they still don't harbour a smouldering grudge against Russia now. Why would relocating a few million more in parts further West necessarily have been so very different?
Anyway, in the hypothetical I suggested there wouldn't have been a Germany left to resent the situation anyway.
To the British weather and railway system, I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
Risked a further offensive, er, I mean advance, er, I mean sortie, er, I mean trip into Welsh Valleys today, trying the Aberdare branch, the last of the trio of lines I needed to do to the northwest of Cardiff. There was a bit of rain going both outward and return, but it could have been worse. Now need only the Ebbw Vale line, and Barry to Maesteg via Bridgend to do the whole set of lines in and around Cardiff (also have done the GWR main line as far west as Swansea).
Do Cornwall.
Already have a game plan, predicated on a three-night stay in Plymouth
Plymouth 1046 Penzance 1247 Penzance 1257 St Erth 1305 St Erth 1318 St Ives 1329 St Ives 1433 St Erth 1445 St Erth 1501 Penzance 1511 Penzance 1600 Plymouth 1758
Plymouth 1046 Par 1142 Par 1147 Newquay 1238 Newquay 1507 Par 1559 Par 1721 Truro 1744 Truro 1759 Falmouth 1823 Falmouth 1929 Truro 1955 Truro 2001 Plymouth 2117
My tuppence worth: the Palestinian Arabs got an absolutely shit deal in 1948. It would've been better, had the British Government had both the ability and the willpower under the circumstances of the time to do something effective about it, if Israel had not been created in the form that it was. Indeed, we would all have been much better off, then and now, if Germany had been permanently divided into half-a-dozen small states after the War, and the population of one of them (e.g. Bavaria) had been removed en masse and resettled in the others, so as to give the Jews a homeland in Europe instead.
However, since we do not possess a Tardis we can hardly send 20,000 heavily armed troops and a warning note to Clem Attlee back in time to correct the problem. We must deal with things as they are, which starts by recognising that the State of Israel within the 1948 borders must - having been conceded its right to exist by the UN - be allowed to stand, and must have its continuing security guaranteed. That, in turn, means that the occupation of lands seized after subsequent Arab invasions of Israel can only be ended as part of a grand bargain in which, amongst other things, all of the neighbours (and other hostile, mainly Muslim, states further afield) recognise the right of Israel to exist and agree to normalise relations with it, and the Islamist terror groups (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) are rooted out, in exchange for decolonisation of the occupied territories so that a Palestinian state can be established.
Imagining how hard that list of objectives is going to be to achieve, how long that might take, and how much diplomatic and economic pressure might need to be brought to bear on both sides to force a resolution, is truly sobering. The job may not be completed in our lifetime. But there is no other way. And examining the issues and the history behind them might also lead one to conclude both that Israel itself is not entirely at fault for all of these problems, and that, in any event, trying to share out exact proportions of the total amount of blame to each of the parties involved isn't going to get anybody very far.
Britain had spent 20 years trying to do that in Palestine, getting attacked by all sides in the process. Watch the Promise for a great docudrama on the final few years it’s very good.
Other than its resonance as the Holy Land I’ve never understood why we tried to cling onto it for so long. There was a strategic argument for a military base to protect the Suez Canal and Middle East, but Cyprus, Suez itself and Aden all offered better options for that. And we still have adequate bases in the region today.
We decided to serve ourselves up a shit sandwich post 1918, and then poured fuel on the fire.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
Chiding liberals for supporting Israel when it was a plucky underdog then criticising it when it's strong and assertive was your construction. Personally I'm entirely happy to admire plucky underdogs and despise brutish bullies, even when they're different stages in the evolution(sic) of the same person/entity.
It's all about their view towards the Jews and why there is an elision between criticism of Jews and Israel. The Jews were granted a country formally by the UN and many (not, of course, the UK) supported that. Why? In part because the Jews had had a hell of a time and needed a break.
Since then the Jews have become stronger and, in your words, indiscriminately brutish. And hence the left is no longer a fan of Israel and that is where the elision comes in because after all, Israel is a Jewish country and hence the criticism of both as though they were the same thing. It of course extends to other strong Jews such as Soros et al.
The Left is the same with rich people who started off poor - they go from needing saving, and thereby providing a natural constituency for the Left, to being part of the Imperialist Capitalist Boss Class and therefore the enemy.
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
Chiding liberals for supporting Israel when it was a plucky underdog then criticising it when it's strong and assertive was your construction. Personally I'm entirely happy to admire plucky underdogs and despise brutish bullies, even when they're different stages in the evolution(sic) of the same person/entity.
It's all about their view towards the Jews and why there is an elision between criticism of Jews and Israel. The Jews were granted a country formally by the UN and many (not, of course, the UK) supported that. Why? In part because the Jews had had a hell of a time and needed a break.
Since then the Jews have become stronger and, in your words, indiscriminately brutish. And hence the left is no longer a fan of Israel and that is where the elision comes in because after all, Israel is a Jewish country and hence the criticism of both as though they were the same thing. It of course extends to other strong Jews such as Soros et al.
The Left is the same with rich people who started off poor - they go from needing saving, and thereby providing a natural constituency for the Left, to being part of the Imperialist Capitalist Boss Class and therefore the enemy.
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
Chiding liberals for supporting Israel when it was a plucky underdog then criticising it when it's strong and assertive was your construction. Personally I'm entirely happy to admire plucky underdogs and despise brutish bullies, even when they're different stages in the evolution(sic) of the same person/entity.
It's all about their view towards the Jews and why there is an elision between criticism of Jews and Israel. The Jews were granted a country formally by the UN and many (not, of course, the UK) supported that. Why? In part because the Jews had had a hell of a time and needed a break.
Since then the Jews have become stronger and, in your words, indiscriminately brutish. And hence the left is no longer a fan of Israel and that is where the elision comes in because after all, Israel is a Jewish country and hence the criticism of both as though they were the same thing. It of course extends to other strong Jews such as Soros et al.
The Left is the same with rich people who started off poor - they go from needing saving, and thereby providing a natural constituency for the Left, to being part of the Imperialist Capitalist Boss Class and therefore the enemy.
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
What intrigues me is why you (and Labour) are so bothered about this particular population movement, whilst never mentioning the others that occurred before and after - e.g. Turkey/Greece, India/Pakistan etc. Millions of people had land taken of them because of base politics - as had Jews and Christians 'moved' (some might say ethnically cleansed) from various countries in the ME - a process that is occurring to this day.
As a politician he was not somebody that I liked let alone respected, but I heard him interviewed at lunchtime on TMS after his election defeat. He was very reasonable, I would say likeable. I will watch his TV show, I think it should be good viewing.
I feel the same way.
In other words, politics did him no favours, and media allows other aspects of his personality to shine. Perhaps he can succeed where Lembit failed?
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
Chiding liberals for supporting Israel when it was a plucky underdog then criticising it when it's strong and assertive was your construction. Personally I'm entirely happy to admire plucky underdogs and despise brutish bullies, even when they're different stages in the evolution(sic) of the same person/entity.
It's all about their view towards the Jews and why there is an elision between criticism of Jews and Israel. The Jews were granted a country formally by the UN and many (not, of course, the UK) supported that. Why? In part because the Jews had had a hell of a time and needed a break.
Since then the Jews have become stronger and, in your words, indiscriminately brutish. And hence the left is no longer a fan of Israel and that is where the elision comes in because after all, Israel is a Jewish country and hence the criticism of both as though they were the same thing. It of course extends to other strong Jews such as Soros et al.
The Left is the same with rich people who started off poor - they go from needing saving, and thereby providing a natural constituency for the Left, to being part of the Imperialist Capitalist Boss Class and therefore the enemy.
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
Chiding liberals for supporting Israel when it was a plucky underdog then criticising it when it's strong and assertive was your construction. Personally I'm entirely happy to admire plucky underdogs and despise brutish bullies, even when they're different stages in the evolution(sic) of the same person/entity.
It's all about their view towards the Jews and why there is an elision between criticism of Jews and Israel. The Jews were granted a country formally by the UN and many (not, of course, the UK) supported that. Why? In part because the Jews had had a hell of a time and needed a break.
Since then the Jews have become stronger and, in your words, indiscriminately brutish. And hence the left is no longer a fan of Israel and that is where the elision comes in because after all, Israel is a Jewish country and hence the criticism of both as though they were the same thing. It of course extends to other strong Jews such as Soros et al.
The Left is the same with rich people who started off poor - they go from needing saving, and thereby providing a natural constituency for the Left, to being part of the Imperialist Capitalist Boss Class and therefore the enemy.
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
What intrigues me is why you (and Labour) are so bothered about this particular population movement, whilst never mentioning the others that occurred before and after - e.g. Turkey/Greece, India/Pakistan etc. Millions of people had land taken of them because of base politics - as had Jews and Christians 'moved' (some might say ethnically cleansed) from various countries in the ME - a process that is occurring to this day.
Let's not forget the Germans themselves - 15 million moved post- (or even pre-) 1945.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
Chiding liberals for supporting Israel when it was a plucky underdog then criticising it when it's strong and assertive was your construction. Personally I'm entirely happy to admire plucky underdogs and despise brutish bullies, even when they're different stages in the evolution(sic) of the same person/entity.
It's all about their view towards the Jews and why there is an elision between criticism of Jews and Israel. The Jews were granted a country formally by the UN and many (not, of course, the UK) supported that. Why? In part because the Jews had had a hell of a time and needed a break.
Since then the Jews have become stronger and, in your words, indiscriminately brutish. And hence the left is no longer a fan of Israel and that is where the elision comes in because after all, Israel is a Jewish country and hence the criticism of both as though they were the same thing. It of course extends to other strong Jews such as Soros et al.
The Left is the same with rich people who started off poor - they go from needing saving, and thereby providing a natural constituency for the Left, to being part of the Imperialist Capitalist Boss Class and therefore the enemy.
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.
I have read many of Cyclefree's rants . Forgive me, if I missed any mention of Palestinians being paid reparations for seizing their lands illegally and Israels soldiers receiving correct custodial sentences for killing Palestinians and not 9 months when 8 months was given to a teenage Palestinian girl for slapping an Israeli soldier.
It is you who is blind ! You cannot bring yourself to criticise the illegal occupation under International Law of Palestinian lands.
I've mentioned some of this stuff previously on here; in fact, many times.
There's another angle to this: there are no 'angels' in the Middle East, country-wise - which is quite annoying given he area's religious history!
Israel can behave terribly - but so have the Palestinians and the surrounding countries. The violence and extremism on both main sides of the conflict have fed each other, and it can be argued that only the extreme actions of the Israeli government - such as building the wall - have stopped most of the terrorism against them.
For instance, it might be helpful for the Palestinians to stop their rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, which continue on into this year - 174 a fortnight ago alone.
To make matters worse, other countries in the region, and in the wider world, have used the sides - and especially the Palestinians - for their own purposes. In many cases it has not been in their interests for there to be peace.
If you are truly interested in peace in the region - and that means peace for Jew, Palestinian, Christian and everyone else - then you have to criticise all sides when they do wrong, and praise them when they do right.
Labour fails on this count as well.
A long email. Yet you fail to mention land being seized illegally, reparations to be paid. I am not sure why Jews were paid reparations [ absolutely correctly ] but Palestinians should not be.
Peter Kozminsky's tv drama "The Promise" for C4 is well worth watching as a good survey of the historical background, counter-pointed with a contemporary story. It's a well regarded piece of tv; in my opinion one of the best, well worth viewing if you haven't seen it. Through the drama it presents both sides of the argument in a reasonably balanced way; some Jewish groups felt it leaned pro-Palestinian, but as the losers from the 1940s storyline some sympathy in their direction was inevitable. Nevertheless British tv production at its very best. And Clair Foy's first leading role, back in the days when she was up and coming.
One interesting historical aspect is how some of the Israeli responses to the Palestinians (demolishing the family homes of bombers, etc.) were based on the original British Army response to Jewish terrorism in the late 1940s.
O/T I've just purchased 310 euro for £301 in preparation for a holiday in Ireland. So much for a weak euro and a disaster of a currency. How long will it be before the GB pound earns that "accolade"?
It is just possible that the perennial PB Briteer proclamations of the collapse of the Eurozone exist in the same as Fox's trade deals.
1999: £1 = € 1.43. 2018: £1 = €1.12
Only one currency has imploded in the last 19 years - it is NOT the EURO.
Never mind 1999, you could get 1.4 or better throughout most of 2015. I know because I put a fair bit into a Euro account that year, the last of which I will be spending in Italy this September.
If we have a NO Deal then there will be another collapse of the pound to below parity.
We will desperately need it to be competitive in the EU after duties are imposed. Many of their exports will also suffer but not by the same margins. After all, if you want to drive a BMW, what do you do ?
Buy one now
Buy a Jag instead. I strongly recommend it.
I have recently bought a Jaguar F Pace SUV.
My grandmother would not drink German wine. She had a brother killed in the First World War.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
Chiding liberals for supporting Israel when it was a plucky underdog then criticising it when it's strong and assertive was your construction. Personally I'm entirely happy to admire plucky underdogs and despise brutish bullies, even when they're different stages in the evolution(sic) of the same person/entity.
It's all about their view towards the Jews and why there is an elision between criticism of Jews and Israel. The Jews were granted a country formally by the UN and many (not, of course, the UK) supported that. Why? In part because the Jews had had a hell of a time and needed a break.
Since then the Jews have become stronger and, in your words, indiscriminately brutish. And hence the left is no longer a fan of Israel and that is where the elision comes in because after all, Israel is a Jewish country and hence the criticism of both as though they were the same thing. It of course extends to other strong Jews such as Soros et al.
The Left is the same with rich people who started off poor - they go from needing saving, and thereby providing a natural constituency for the Left, to being part of the Imperialist Capitalist Boss Class and therefore the enemy.
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
I avoided none of his points. He wishes that the State of Israel had never been created.
It is an argument which legitimises anti-Semitism because it deems the creation of Israel to be an original sin. From that point Israel and the Jews can do no right.
When you and I had an exchange the other day I hadn't realised that you objected to the State of Israel also, as well as its supposed abuses. As I said then I'm looking forward to seeing you on the march to restore all modern nations to their indigenous populations.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
What intrigues me is why you (and Labour) are so bothered about this particular population movement, whilst never mentioning the others that occurred before and after - e.g. Turkey/Greece, India/Pakistan etc. Millions of people had land taken of them because of base politics - as had Jews and Christians 'moved' (some might say ethnically cleansed) from various countries in the ME - a process that is occurring to this day.
What intrigues me is how the argument often goes from actual discussion about the issue to being quickly switched to you shouldn't even care, as if that is a good counter argument to doing stuff wrong.
I joined in a conversation that was already happening here, happy to be corrected but I doubt I have brought up Israel or the Israel-Palestine conflict in a conversation that was nothing to do with it once. In almost all my discussions about the conflict I am joining in other people's conversations. I have views on lots of things, if one thing comes up repeatedly I will end up talking about it repeatedly.
I have for example stronger (or perhaps just well versed so confident) views on drug laws (or cannabis particularly) so if I was leading conversations that would come up more in discussion. I don't so it doesn't.
When you consider many of the crimes happening around the world at the time I'm sure many would have considered the attention paid to South African apartheid regime to be excessive as well
... Indeed, we would all have been much better off, then and now, if Germany had been permanently divided into half-a-dozen small states after the War, and the population of one of them (e.g. Bavaria) had been removed en masse and resettled in the others, so as to give the Jews a homeland in Europe instead.
That would have resulted in a German victim myth larger than the one the Nazis used to explain WW1. We would not have had peace in Western Europe for a generation.
All of the Germans to the East of the Oder-Neisse line were driven out by the Soviets in 1945 to make room for the Poles. That clearly didn't create the issue you describe. Once the dust had settled they didn't set about blaming the Soviet Union for kicking their backsides at the time, and they still don't harbour a smouldering grudge against Russia now. Why would relocating a few million more in parts further West necessarily have been so very different?
Anyway, in the hypothetical I suggested there wouldn't have been a Germany left to resent the situation anyway.
It's worse than that - you're all forgetting the three million Germans in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, who were all expelled in 1946:
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
I avoided none of his points. He wishes that the State of Israel had never been created.
It is an argument which legitimises anti-Semitism because it deems the creation of Israel to be an original sin. From that point Israel and the Jews can do no right.
When you and I had an exchange the other day I hadn't realised that you objected to the State of Israel also, as well as its supposed abuses. As I said then I'm looking forward to seeing you on the march to restore all modern nations to their indigenous populations.
You avoided his point because the reasoning is Islamophobic/racist.
The Palestinians deserved to lose their land because they are Arabs and mostly Muslims.
Or can you come up with another reason beyond accusing others of being racist for not wanting to punish Arabs for European crimes?
Equally I am looking forward to you marching to give your own house and land away to groups that have been mistreated by others.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
What intrigues me is why you (and Labour) are so bothered about this particular population movement, whilst never mentioning the others that occurred before and after - e.g. Turkey/Greece, India/Pakistan etc. Millions of people had land taken of them because of base politics - as had Jews and Christians 'moved' (some might say ethnically cleansed) from various countries in the ME - a process that is occurring to this day.
What intrigues me is how the argument often goes from actual discussion about the issue to being quickly switched to you shouldn't even care, as if that is a good counter argument to doing stuff wrong.
(Snip)
My post was a response to yours (which you snipped incorrectly, BTW). There is wrong-doing on all sides; we will not get peace by addressing *all* the wrong-doing, whatever the faith of the miscreant.
That's the different: Labour give the impression of caring only for the Palestinians. I try to care for the poor 'ordinary' members of the public of all faiths who are trapped in this never-ending mess.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
I avoided none of his points. He wishes that the State of Israel had never been created.
It is an argument which legitimises anti-Semitism because it deems the creation of Israel to be an original sin. From that point Israel and the Jews can do no right.
When you and I had an exchange the other day I hadn't realised that you objected to the State of Israel also, as well as its supposed abuses. As I said then I'm looking forward to seeing you on the march to restore all modern nations to their indigenous populations.
You avoided his point because the reasoning is Islamophobic/racist.
The Palestinians deserved to lose their land because they are Arabs and mostly Muslims.
Or can you come up with another reason beyond accusing others of being racist for not wanting to punish Arabs for European crimes?
Equally I am looking forward to you marching to give your own house and land away to groups that have been mistreated by others.
What intrigues me is why you (and Labour) are so bothered about this particular population movement, whilst never mentioning the others that occurred before and after - e.g. Turkey/Greece, India/Pakistan etc. Millions of people had land taken of them because of base politics - as had Jews and Christians 'moved' (some might say ethnically cleansed) from various countries in the ME - a process that is occurring to this day.
As Mr Smithson points out ATL, Israel is a cornerstone of the (in the view of the New Left) American-Capitalist Axis of Evil. The Arabs, and chiefly the dispossessed Palestinians, are the great heroes of the resistance against Israel. QED.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
What intrigues me is why you (and Labour) are so bothered about this particular population movement, whilst never mentioning the others that occurred before and after - e.g. Turkey/Greece, India/Pakistan etc. Millions of people had land taken of them because of base politics - as had Jews and Christians 'moved' (some might say ethnically cleansed) from various countries in the ME - a process that is occurring to this day.
What intrigues me is how the argument often goes from actual discussion about the issue to being quickly switched to you shouldn't even care, as if that is a good counter argument to doing stuff wrong.
(Snip)
My post was a response to yours (which you snipped incorrectly, BTW). There is wrong-doing on all sides; we will not get peace by addressing *all* the wrong-doing, whatever the faith of the miscreant.
That's the different: Labour give the impression of caring only for the Palestinians. I try to care for the poor 'ordinary' members of the public of all faiths who are trapped in this never-ending mess.
Perhaps you should try it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding but I quoted your post in full how did I 'snip' it incorrectly?
I'm not sure the supporting of the current government policy of selling arms to Israel or not recognising the Palestinian state really covers caring for all faiths...
Perhaps you should try practising what you preach.
Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?
So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.
I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"
Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
I avoided none of his points. He wishes that the State of Israel had never been created.
It is an argument which legitimises anti-Semitism because it deems the creation of Israel to be an original sin. From that point Israel and the Jews can do no right.
When you and I had an exchange the other day I hadn't realised that you objected to the State of Israel also, as well as its supposed abuses. As I said then I'm looking forward to seeing you on the march to restore all modern nations to their indigenous populations.
You avoided his point because the reasoning is Islamophobic/racist.
The Palestinians deserved to lose their land because they are Arabs and mostly Muslims.
Or can you come up with another reason beyond accusing others of being racist for not wanting to punish Arabs for European crimes?
Equally I am looking forward to you marching to give your own house and land away to groups that have been mistreated by others.
Heading over to the other thread, sweetheart.
Will answer you there.
It is a pointless argument you will refuse to actually say why you think Arab Muslims deserved to lose their land for European crimes.
Maybe I am misunderstanding but I quoted your post in full how did I 'snip' it incorrectly?
I'm not sure the supporting of the current government policy of selling arms to Israel or not recognising the Palestinian state really covers caring for all faiths...
Perhaps you should try practising what you preach.
You made it look as though I was responding to someone else's post, not yours. Easily done, mind.
How am I not practicing what I preach? I have no say in selling arms to Israel, and gain no direct advantage from it. It'd be great if the UK did recognise a Palestinian state, but that's rather hard to do with Hamas in charge of Gaza. You know, those nice cuddly terrorists who don't want Israel to exist.
The situation in Israel, Palestine and the wider region is immensely complex. That's not a reason to do nothing, but it is a reason to tread carefully and not make matters worse.
So what is your 'answer' to the problem, and how would you get there?
You made it look as though I was responding to someone else's post, not yours. Easily done, mind.
How am I not practicing what I preach? I have no say in selling arms to Israel, and gain no direct advantage from it. It'd be great if the UK did recognise a Palestinian state, but that's rather hard to do with Hamas in charge of Gaza. You know, those nice cuddly terrorists who don't want Israel to exist.
The situation in Israel, Palestine and the wider region is immensely complex. That's not a reason to do nothing, but it is a reason to tread carefully and not make matters worse.
So what is your 'answer' to the problem, and how would you get there?
Ahh I quickly edited it as my reply was the quote to start with didn't even notice that part!
Well they would be the kind of policies I would advocate and imagine from a what should Britain do point of view but that is talked of as if it is some crazy anti Israel policy or something that in yours words isn't caring for all faiths, it was a slightly snippy comeback TBH as you made the accusation I didn't.
Nobody (nobody serious anyway) is proposing selling weapons to Hamas or even Fatah or whatever the Abbas led regime is called.
We seem to manage fine to have relations with Israel despite them actually, with their actions not just words, slowly making it impossible for the Palestinian people to live there. Nobody is proposing we hail as them as the model of good governance or diplomatic relations.
The UK cannot answer the problem, even if I was dictator of Britain we alone couldn't do anything. We just have to try and nudge Israel into treating the Palestinians better and call out their misdeeds without giving qualifications that the occupation is okay or somehow justified because of the resistance it produces.
You can still call out the Palestinians for what they do but it should be done with the understanding that if you force a people into poverty, steal their land and bombard them militarily it will almost inevitably lead to the kind of fight back and rhetoric we have seen from the Palestinians.
Ahh I quickly edited it as my reply was the quote to start with didn't even notice that part!
Well they would be the kind of policies I would advocate and imagine from a what should Britain do point of view but that is talked of as if it is some crazy anti Israel policy or something that in yours words isn't caring for all faiths, it was a slightly snippy comeback TBH as you made the accusation I didn't.
Nobody (nobody serious anyway) is proposing selling weapons to Hamas or even Fatah or whatever the Abbas led regime is called.
We seem to manage fine to have relations with Israel despite them actually, with their actions not just words, slowly making it impossible for the Palestinian people to live there. Nobody is proposing we hail as them as the model of good governance or diplomatic relations.
The UK cannot answer the problem, even if I was dictator of Britain we alone couldn't do anything. We just have to try and nudge Israel into treating the Palestinians better and call out their misdeeds without giving qualifications that the occupation is okay or somehow justified because of the resistance it produces.
You can still call out the Palestinians for what they do but it should be done with the understanding that if you force a people into poverty, steal their land and bombard them militarily it will almost inevitably lead to the kind of fight back and rhetoric we have seen from the Palestinians.
As far as Ii can tell int he above, you haven't said what your answer is, or how you would get there. Indeed, it's hard to actually work out what the heck you're trying to say in the above except for isn't Israel awful?
In my view: The ideal is a two-state system, with peace and trust between all parties, and people living in freedom without fear (or as near as can be got - that doesn't even apply to all of the UK). Neighbouring states and the wider world need to support Palestine as it (re)builds.
Now, how to get there: Israel has to calm down, stop new settlements, and stop their excesses. Increase rights for Palestinians, Arabs and others within Israel, and abandon their nukes. A decrease in their weaponry would help as well, but that could only be achieved with strict guarantees from neighbouring states.
At the same time, Palestinians need to fix the splits in their politics, renounce terrorism (both internal towards other Palestinians and externally), stop firing rockets at Israel, and admit Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state solution.
These would all be a start, address some of the worst wrongs on all sides, and hopefully build trust. It's also almost impossible to achieve - but it does at least address the worst wrongs on the two main sides.
edit: it's something to work towards. But it's not what Jezza and Labour are interested in.
As far as Ii can tell int he above, you haven't said what your answer is, or how you would get there. Indeed, it's hard to actually work out what the heck you're trying to say in the above except for isn't Israel awful?
In my view: The ideal is a two-state system, with peace and trust between all parties, and people living in freedom without fear (or as near as can be got - that doesn't even apply to all of the UK). Neighbouring states and the wider world need to support Palestine as it (re)builds.
Now, how to get there: Israel has to calm down, stop new settlements, and stop their excesses. Increase rights for Palestinians, Arabs and others within Israel, and abandon their nukes. A decrease in their weaponry would help as well, but that could only be achieved with strict guarantees from neighbouring states.
At the same time, Palestinians need to fix the splits in their politics, renounce terrorism (both internal towards other Palestinians and externally), stop firing rockets at Israel, and admit Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state solution.
These would all be a start, address some of the worst wrongs on all sides, and hopefully build trust. It's also almost impossible to achieve - but it does at least address the worst wrongs on the two main sides.
TBH I thought you were just asking me British policy or what Britain should do.
The Nukes IMO is a small matter, I could see the advantage to them keeping them to feel safer, although I would like a nuke free world solving the Israel-Palestine conflict can take priority IMO.
I would largely agree with all of that, Israel probably needs to go back to something like the '67 borders for a (somewhat) workable Palestinian state.
As far as Ii can tell int he above, you haven't said what your answer is, or how you would get there. Indeed, it's hard to actually work out what the heck you're trying to say in the above except for isn't Israel awful?
In my view: The ideal is a two-state system, with peace and trust between all parties, and people living in freedom without fear (or as near as can be got - that doesn't even apply to all of the UK). Neighbouring states and the wider world need to support Palestine as it (re)builds.
Now, how to get there: Israel has to calm down, stop new settlements, and stop their excesses. Increase rights for Palestinians, Arabs and others within Israel, and abandon their nukes. A decrease in their weaponry would help as well, but that could only be achieved with strict guarantees from neighbouring states.
At the same time, Palestinians need to fix the splits in their politics, renounce terrorism (both internal towards other Palestinians and externally), stop firing rockets at Israel, and admit Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state solution.
These would all be a start, address some of the worst wrongs on all sides, and hopefully build trust. It's also almost impossible to achieve - but it does at least address the worst wrongs on the two main sides.
TBH I thought you were just asking me British policy or what Britain should do.
The Nukes IMO is a small matter, I could see the advantage to them keeping them to feel safer, although I would like a nuke free world solving the Israel-Palestine conflict can take priority IMO.
I would largely agree with all of that, Israel probably needs to go back to something like the '67 borders for a (somewhat) workable Palestinian state.
before you can define British policy, and consequently what Britain should do, you need to work out what you want, and the steps required to help get there.
Comments
Likewise, overhead line equipment has an expansion compensation system (I think the weights you see hanging every so often off the cables is part of it), but it can only cope with a certain range before problems set in.
We could optimise the system for higher temperatures, and then face more problems in winter.
edit: https://www.railengineer.uk/2015/07/01/getting-hot-and-bothered-why-the-railway-doesnt-like-high-temperatures/
https://twitter.com/SpecCoffeeHouse/status/1022887807029858310
Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
Direct sunshine on a metal rail when it’s 30C can actually heat it to 50-70C causing it to expand and warp and necessitating temporary speed restrictions for safety reasons.
The chap says he was hacked. It seems the hacker posted antisemitic content secretly to the chap's account over a 3 year period without the chappie noticing. Hmmm.
2) And you utterly fail to address my post. It's almost as though you've responded to a different email post ...
Anyway, in the hypothetical I suggested there wouldn't have been a Germany left to resent the situation anyway.
Plymouth 1046 Penzance 1247
Penzance 1257 St Erth 1305
St Erth 1318 St Ives 1329
St Ives 1433 St Erth 1445
St Erth 1501 Penzance 1511
Penzance 1600 Plymouth 1758
Plymouth 1046 Par 1142
Par 1147 Newquay 1238
Newquay 1507 Par 1559
Par 1721 Truro 1744
Truro 1759 Falmouth 1823
Falmouth 1929 Truro 1955
Truro 2001 Plymouth 2117
Plymouth 1054 Gunnislake 1140
Gunnislake 1345 Plymouth 1430
Plymouth 1511 Liskeard 1535
Liskeard 1541 Looe 1610
Looe 1715 Liskeard 1743
Liskeard 1749 Plymouth 1818
Other than its resonance as the Holy Land I’ve never understood why we tried to cling onto it for so long. There was a strategic argument for a military base to protect the Suez Canal and Middle East, but Cyprus, Suez itself and Aden all offered better options for that. And we still have adequate bases in the region today.
We decided to serve ourselves up a shit sandwich post 1918, and then poured fuel on the fire.
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
One interesting historical aspect is how some of the Israeli responses to the Palestinians (demolishing the family homes of bombers, etc.) were based on the original British Army response to Jewish terrorism in the late 1940s.
My grandmother would not drink German wine. She had a brother killed in the First World War.
NEW THREAD
It is an argument which legitimises anti-Semitism because it deems the creation of Israel to be an original sin. From that point Israel and the Jews can do no right.
When you and I had an exchange the other day I hadn't realised that you objected to the State of Israel also, as well as its supposed abuses. As I said then I'm looking forward to seeing you on the march to restore all modern nations to their indigenous populations.
I joined in a conversation that was already happening here, happy to be corrected but I doubt I have brought up Israel or the Israel-Palestine conflict in a conversation that was nothing to do with it once. In almost all my discussions about the conflict I am joining in other people's conversations. I have views on lots of things, if one thing comes up repeatedly I will end up talking about it repeatedly.
I have for example stronger (or perhaps just well versed so confident) views on drug laws (or cannabis particularly) so if I was leading conversations that would come up more in discussion. I don't so it doesn't.
When you consider many of the crimes happening around the world at the time I'm sure many would have considered the attention paid to South African apartheid regime to be excessive as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia
Charmingly, it was called 'the final solution of the German question.'
The Palestinians deserved to lose their land because they are Arabs and mostly Muslims.
Or can you come up with another reason beyond accusing others of being racist for not wanting to punish Arabs for European crimes?
Equally I am looking forward to you marching to give your own house and land away to groups that have been mistreated by others.
That's the different: Labour give the impression of caring only for the Palestinians. I try to care for the poor 'ordinary' members of the public of all faiths who are trapped in this never-ending mess.
Perhaps you should try it.
Will answer you there.
NEW THREAD
I'm not sure the supporting of the current government policy of selling arms to Israel or not recognising the Palestinian state really covers caring for all faiths...
Perhaps you should try practising what you preach.
How am I not practicing what I preach? I have no say in selling arms to Israel, and gain no direct advantage from it. It'd be great if the UK did recognise a Palestinian state, but that's rather hard to do with Hamas in charge of Gaza. You know, those nice cuddly terrorists who don't want Israel to exist.
The situation in Israel, Palestine and the wider region is immensely complex. That's not a reason to do nothing, but it is a reason to tread carefully and not make matters worse.
So what is your 'answer' to the problem, and how would you get there?
Well they would be the kind of policies I would advocate and imagine from a what should Britain do point of view but that is talked of as if it is some crazy anti Israel policy or something that in yours words isn't caring for all faiths, it was a slightly snippy comeback TBH as you made the accusation I didn't.
Nobody (nobody serious anyway) is proposing selling weapons to Hamas or even Fatah or whatever the Abbas led regime is called.
We seem to manage fine to have relations with Israel despite them actually, with their actions not just words, slowly making it impossible for the Palestinian people to live there. Nobody is proposing we hail as them as the model of good governance or diplomatic relations.
The UK cannot answer the problem, even if I was dictator of Britain we alone couldn't do anything. We just have to try and nudge Israel into treating the Palestinians better and call out their misdeeds without giving qualifications that the occupation is okay or somehow justified because of the resistance it produces.
You can still call out the Palestinians for what they do but it should be done with the understanding that if you force a people into poverty, steal their land and bombard them militarily it will almost inevitably lead to the kind of fight back and rhetoric we have seen from the Palestinians.
In my view:
The ideal is a two-state system, with peace and trust between all parties, and people living in freedom without fear (or as near as can be got - that doesn't even apply to all of the UK). Neighbouring states and the wider world need to support Palestine as it (re)builds.
Now, how to get there:
Israel has to calm down, stop new settlements, and stop their excesses. Increase rights for Palestinians, Arabs and others within Israel, and abandon their nukes. A decrease in their weaponry would help as well, but that could only be achieved with strict guarantees from neighbouring states.
At the same time, Palestinians need to fix the splits in their politics, renounce terrorism (both internal towards other Palestinians and externally), stop firing rockets at Israel, and admit Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state solution.
These would all be a start, address some of the worst wrongs on all sides, and hopefully build trust. It's also almost impossible to achieve - but it does at least address the worst wrongs on the two main sides.
edit: it's something to work towards. But it's not what Jezza and Labour are interested in.
The Nukes IMO is a small matter, I could see the advantage to them keeping them to feel safer, although I would like a nuke free world solving the Israel-Palestine conflict can take priority IMO.
I would largely agree with all of that, Israel probably needs to go back to something like the '67 borders for a (somewhat) workable Palestinian state.