Good morning all. Superb article from David - it's a real treat to have two of his measured, thoughtful offerings in one week.
It's an old book ('82) but Le Carre's 'The Little Drummer Girl' is well worth a read. It really opened my eyes as to the plight of the Palestinians, while not being unsympathetic to the Israelis.
I'm going to skip PB's attempts to solve the Middle Eastern question, but my view is that the UK has little or nothing to contribute to any lasting solution, other than making sympathetic noises.
Dontcha think a certain ex PM would be a great envoy for Middle East peace?
So the only future for the Palestinians is life in an Apartheid Bantustan in the occupied territories, denied the rights of other peoples to self rule?
What is your solution, and how would you get there?
What matters are the people, whether Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. People deserve the opportunity to live and thrive in a peaceful environment that their 'leaders' (on all sides) are unable to provide them.
That is what all the peoples of the ME should get - and which, perversely, Israel provides the best at the moment.
?
How your twisted mind could possibly equate Scotland with any of this is mind boggling.
The only solution is a two state solution [ ultimately even Hamas will accept it ] on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the joint Capital. East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinian state.
Let's not be too hung up on the security issue. Israel is a nuclear power.
Off topic for me, my wonderment is how he could try to say Scotland was similar to Kurdistan , Arakan etc. Need to be seriously not right in the head to try and equate Scotland to be similar.
I am not sure why you consider that. My point is that in each of these cases a substantial body of the nation considers that it should be an independent state. Obviously there are major differences in how Scotland pursues the issue compared with the other ones that I mentioned, but that is in large part a product of a different environment.
Well it is a bit like saying that the UK is like Chile was under Pinochet, at the moment
Not sure what you mean by that. The question of the place of nationalism in a globalised world is at the core of a number of political disputes around the world. It is a core theme of Scottish politics, but also Irish, and Brexit. All of these are likely to be peaceful, if rancorous.
There is also the explosive issue of ethnicity and nationality too, in a world where many have dual nationality. There is also a more fluid attitude to citizenship when a passport is a consumer good, and a form of inherited wealth. I have been musing on this for some weeks.
I mean no insult to Scots or Kurds by the analogy, but both are currently nations without recognised statehood at present.
A homeowner has been told she could be breaking the law by parking on her own driveway in Merseyside.
Helen Maloney, of Emmanuel Road, Southport, said she received a letter from Sefton Council as she does not have a dropped kerb and has to drive over the pavement.
I mean, of course that is the case, why wouldn't it be?
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
You think if the Russian blockade of West Berlin had succeeded in starving the population of Berlin, that would not have a been a casus belli?
Good morning all. Superb article from David - it's a real treat to have two of his measured, thoughtful offerings in one week.
It's an old book ('82) but Le Carre's 'The Little Drummer Girl' is well worth a read. It really opened my eyes as to the plight of the Palestinians, while not being unsympathetic to the Israelis.
I'm going to skip PB's attempts to solve the Middle Eastern question, but my view is that the UK has little or nothing to contribute to any lasting solution, other than making sympathetic noises.
Dontcha think a certain ex PM would be a great envoy for Middle East peace?
Oh, yes. The one on Israeli pay. He also gave away a lot of the settlements.
That Corbyn IRA video during the GE got a lot of views too - views do not necessarily equal any effect.
Wrong. The last meter reading we got from Carlotta was 5.5m. Richard Nabavi was also hung up with that video. I hope it was well made.
I don't quite know what you think I am wrong about. A video might have impact, or be reflective of a change in mood, but the mere presence of a video which gets a lot of views doesn't in itself signify anything.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
You think if the Russian blockade of West Berlin had succeeded in starving the population of Berlin, that would not have a been a casus belli?
Blockading the Straits of Tiran would not have starved the population of Israel.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Because of Security Council resolution 242. Yes, supported by the US and the UK !!!
More importantly, accepted by ALL Arab countries, the PLO and ISRAEL [ then ].
I also feel Hamas will accept if all sides agree at the same time. But the Israelis will not leave the settlements.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
Well they were invaded on multiple sides in 1948 which ended with a ceasefire and the ceasefire was cancelled by those who had invaded. What does a side at war cancelling a ceasefire mean to you? To me it means the war is active again.
Not sure what you find interesting but a military blockade has historically always been a casus belli. It's never not been one.
That Corbyn IRA video during the GE got a lot of views too - views do not necessarily equal any effect.
Wrong. The last meter reading we got from Carlotta was 5.5m. Richard Nabavi was also hung up with that video. I hope it was well made.
I don't quite know what you think I am wrong about. A video might have impact, or be reflective of a change in mood, but the mere presence of a video which gets a lot of views doesn't in itself signify anything.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Because of Security Council resolution 242. Yes, supported by the US and the UK !!!
More importantly, accepted by ALL Arab countries, the PLO and ISRAEL [ then ].
That's why.
That's not true. The Arab states rejected 242 at the time. Syria only formally accepted it after the Yom Kippur war. Furthermore the principle was always and stated then to be a negotiated land for peace as has subsequently been agreed with Egypt and others. Hamas still doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist and hasn't negotiated peace.
That Corbyn IRA video during the GE got a lot of views too - views do not necessarily equal any effect.
Wrong. The last meter reading we got from Carlotta was 5.5m. Richard Nabavi was also hung up with that video. I hope it was well made.
I don't quite know what you think I am wrong about. A video might have impact, or be reflective of a change in mood, but the mere presence of a video which gets a lot of views doesn't in itself signify anything.
"Wrong" referred to the 4.2m views.
4.2m is just from that specific tweet that went viral this week. It's been posted elsewhere too, as well as the original from Comedy Central.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
You think if the Russian blockade of West Berlin had succeeded in starving the population of Berlin, that would not have a been a casus belli?
Blockading the Straits of Tiran would not have starved the population of Israel.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
It’s because the Occupied Territories were part of the land originally allocated to the Palestinian state in 1948 (which Jordan then seized for itself). So if there is to be a Palestinian state then those 1967 borders are a starting point.
Having had my tuppance worth about why I disagree with David earlier I also want to say that I agree with those who point out (a) that this is not really our problem and (b) given our history we are very unlikely to make a positive contribution to the solution.
Which makes you wonder really why we obsess with this so much. It's not as if we don't have a lot of problems of our own that we could be getting on with.
Because it is relevant to the Labour Party’s attitude to the Jewish community here. And that is an important issue. For a major political party to start scapegoating a minority and enabling or turning a blind eye to anti-semitism is not something we have really seen in British politics in recent decades and something we should want ended pdq.
Apparently (source The Guardian’s KFC article) one can, in the Philippines, buy a pizza-like product based on fried chicken. A layer of deep fried KFC-type chicken with ham and pineapple on top.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
Well they were invaded on multiple sides in 1948 which ended with a ceasefire and the ceasefire was cancelled by those who had invaded. What does a side at war cancelling a ceasefire mean to you? To me it means the war is active again.
Not sure what you find interesting but a military blockade has historically always been a casus belli. It's never not been one.
So in the face of a military blockade, fight back with anything you've got? Rockets, for example?
Of course in 1967 the Israelis initilally stated that it was Egypt who had made the intial attack, but when that story fell apart they shiftily moved onto the preemptive strike justification - 'The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first'
That Corbyn IRA video during the GE got a lot of views too - views do not necessarily equal any effect.
Wrong. The last meter reading we got from Carlotta was 5.5m. Richard Nabavi was also hung up with that video. I hope it was well made.
I don't quite know what you think I am wrong about. A video might have impact, or be reflective of a change in mood, but the mere presence of a video which gets a lot of views doesn't in itself signify anything.
"Wrong" referred to the 4.2m views.
4.2m is just from that specific tweet that went viral this week. It's been posted elsewhere too, as well as the original from Comedy Central.
When it exceeeds the number of Remain voters we'll talk....
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
You think if the Russian blockade of West Berlin had succeeded in starving the population of Berlin, that would not have a been a casus belli?
Blockading the Straits of Tiran would not have starved the population of Israel.
So you haven't answered the point then.
Noted.
'Noted.'
It's nice that you have a pomposity dial that goes up to 11.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Because of Security Council resolution 242. Yes, supported by the US and the UK !!!
More importantly, accepted by ALL Arab countries, the PLO and ISRAEL [ then ].
That's why.
That's not true. The Arab states rejected 242 at the time. Syria only formally accepted it after the Yom Kippur war. Furthermore the principle was always and stated then to be a negotiated land for peace as has subsequently been agreed with Egypt and others. Hamas still doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist and hasn't negotiated peace.
Bollocks!
"United Nations Resolution 242, resolution of the United Nations (UN) Security Council passed in an effort to secure a just and lasting peace in the wake of the Six-Day (June) War of 1967, fought primarily between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Israelis supported the resolution because it called on the Arab states to accept Israel’s right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Each of the Arab states eventually accepted it (Egypt and Jordan accepted the resolution from the outset) because of its clause calling for Israel to withdraw from the territories conquered in 1967. The Palestine Liberation Organization rejected it until 1988 because it lacked explicit references to Palestinians. Though never fully implemented, it was the basis of diplomatic efforts to end Arab-Israeli conflicts until the Camp David Accords and remains an important touchstone in any negotiated resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Has he ever been away? I was trying to tune my radio to TMS last Sunday and stumbled upon him droning on about Boris and burkas on something called 'The Nigel Farage Show'. It was a chilling experience. It must have been like hearing Lord Haw Haw in the early 1940s.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
You think if the Russian blockade of West Berlin had succeeded in starving the population of Berlin, that would not have a been a casus belli?
Blockading the Straits of Tiran would not have starved the population of Israel.
So you haven't answered the point then.
Noted.
'Noted.'
It's nice that you have a pomposity dial that goes up to 11.
What was your point again?
My point was you run away when someone makes a point that you don't want to answer.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
You think if the Russian blockade of West Berlin had succeeded in starving the population of Berlin, that would not have a been a casus belli?
Blockading the Straits of Tiran would not have starved the population of Israel.
So you haven't answered the point then.
Noted.
'Noted.'
It's nice that you have a pomposity dial that goes up to 11.
What was your point again?
My point was you run away when someone makes a point that you don't want to answer.
So there's really no reason to engage with you.
Before you huffily disengage yet again, what was the point I ran away from?
That Corbyn IRA video during the GE got a lot of views too - views do not necessarily equal any effect.
Wrong. The last meter reading we got from Carlotta was 5.5m. Richard Nabavi was also hung up with that video. I hope it was well made.
I don't quite know what you think I am wrong about. A video might have impact, or be reflective of a change in mood, but the mere presence of a video which gets a lot of views doesn't in itself signify anything.
"Wrong" referred to the 4.2m views.
4.2m is just from that specific tweet that went viral this week. It's been posted elsewhere too, as well as the original from Comedy Central.
When it exceeeds the number of Remain voters we'll talk....
Each click from a non-Labour voted increased the Labour vote. I think it was that video which catapulted Labour from 31% to 40%.
This is a deeply racist article that writes off Palestinian rights to expiate western sins and seeks to justify the unending helotage of their people.
Lol.
Why is justifying the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and continued servitude of a people "LOL" to you?
You are a troll - go away.
TIL the word "helotage". I think he should stay if he'll promise to keep teaching us new words.
If Jacob Rees-Mogg starts using it in the context of Brexit we'll know he's reading...
While still inaccurate, it might be slightly more apposite in that context, the helots being the subjugated peoples who provided economic sustenance to the Spartan state.
Haven't got much time but I think the suggestion that the British ownership of the land quite compared to the replacement that took place when Israel was created. British ownership of the land was not like the replacement that took place afterwards. Similarly a group of people who already live somewhere splitting up Yugoslavia style. To suggest this is what happened with Palestine and Israel is either ignorant of history or a lie for propaganda purposes.
it was foreign people coming to take land and kick the locals out.
One thing is for sure, no settlement is going to come from an effort to ascribe blame to one side or the other. Which constitutes most of the current debate.
Neither Adonis nor Farage are deluded on this. Get ready for the People's vote. The Backlash is here.
There is some bunch of Remainers trying to get CLPs to put a motion to conference supporting a 'People's Vote'. Apparently over 100 CLPs have put the motion forward. Including mine, unfortunately.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Germany picked a fight with Poland in 1939 and six years later had to cede vast territories to, er, Poland.
Neither Adonis nor Farage are deluded on this. Get ready for the People's vote. The Backlash is here.
There is some bunch of Remainers trying to get CLPs to put a motion to conference supporting a 'People's Vote'. Apparently over 100 CLPs have put the motion forward. Including mine, unfortunately.
Neither Adonis nor Farage are deluded on this. Get ready for the People's vote. The Backlash is here.
There is some bunch of Remainers trying to get CLPs to put a motion to conference supporting a 'People's Vote'. Apparently over 100 CLPs have put the motion forward. Including mine, unfortunately.
How many of those 100 constituencies have a Labour MP though? And how many of those constituencies voted Leave?
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Germany picked a fight with Poland in 1939 and six years later had to cede vast territories to, er, Poland.
German had taken territory from Poland in the past.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Germany picked a fight with Poland in 1939 and six years later had to cede vast territories to, er, Poland.
German had taken territory from Poland in the past.
Indeed, compare the map of modern Poland with one of Poland from around 1000 AD:
Dr. Prasannan, the Polish-Lithuanian state was rather large too.
But it depends how far back one goes. I saw a tweet the other day (wibbling about the UK, EU, and Ireland) saying that the Republic wouldn't leave the EU for a closer state of affairs with the UK because of 800 years of wickedness.
That's getting quite close to me holding a grudge for the Harrying of the North when 75% of Yorkshiremen ended up dead. It's fortunate I'm not inclined to do so, as the Normans integrated themselves to extinction so I'm not sure against whom said grudge would be held in any case.
Hard sell of Israel Bonds against this header for me. If David had written an article that was less pro-Israel would the affiliate marketing kick in the same way?
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Germany picked a fight with Poland in 1939 and six years later had to cede vast territories to, er, Poland.
German had taken territory from Poland in the past.
Indeed, compare the map of modern Poland with one of Poland from around 1000 AD:
A couple of people have posted here before the quarterly changes since the referendum as forecast by the shock and severe shock scenarios, along with what has really happened since. Does anyone have a copy of that data or a link to it, I can't find it from Google. I'd also be curious if possible please to see a link to the if we voted remain predictions.
Dr. Prasannan, the Polish-Lithuanian state was rather large too.
But it depends how far back one goes. I saw a tweet the other day (wibbling about the UK, EU, and Ireland) saying that the Republic wouldn't leave the EU for a closer state of affairs with the UK because of 800 years of wickedness.
That's getting quite close to me holding a grudge for the Harrying of the North when 75% of Yorkshiremen ended up dead. It's fortunate I'm not inclined to do so, as the Normans integrated themselves to extinction so I'm not sure against whom said grudge would be held in any case.
The Harrying of the North was almost 1000 years ago; Irish grieviances against the UK (or more specifically England are almost within living memory. Indeed suspect it wouldn’t be too difficult to find old men and women who remember the Black and Tans.
A couple of people have posted here before the quarterly changes since the referendum as forecast by the shock and severe shock scenarios, along with what has really happened since. Does anyone have a copy of that data or a link to it, I can't find it from Google. I'd also be curious if possible please to see a link to the if we voted remain predictions.
Mr. Meeks, that is weird. Why donate in that way? Surely, if nefarious (and competent) you'd want to at least try and do it through a means that's legal but obfuscates the true origins?
King Cole, true, but the Harrying was circa 920 years ago and the tweet I reference cited 800 years of evildoing (could've been a little longer, actually).
The Second World War's also in living memory. I recall having a bit of a disagreement with my grandpa over the Germans (I didn't feel they should be held responsible for WWII. He, er, wasn't a fan of them).
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Germany picked a fight with Poland in 1939 and six years later had to cede vast territories to, er, Poland.
German had taken territory from Poland in the past.
Indeed, compare the map of modern Poland with one of Poland from around 1000 AD:
The borders of Eastern Europe were almost as subject to change as those of the Middle East up until the end of WWII. Indeed interwar Polish Zionists envisaged a Jewish homeland in Eastern Europe as well as Palestine. Subsequent events of course precluded that.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
Well they were invaded on multiple sides in 1948 which ended with a ceasefire and the ceasefire was cancelled by those who had invaded. What does a side at war cancelling a ceasefire mean to you? To me it means the war is active again.
Not sure what you find interesting but a military blockade has historically always been a casus belli. It's never not been one.
So in the face of a military blockade, fight back with anything you've got? Rockets, for example?
Of course in 1967 the Israelis initilally stated that it was Egypt who had made the intial attack, but when that story fell apart they shiftily moved onto the preemptive strike justification - 'The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first'
Yes of course. If someone attempted to blockade the UK militarily I would 100% support rockets etc to be used in any fight back. You wouldn't? You'd sit idly by while we were blockaded? How else do you expect a military blockade to end?
Neither Adonis nor Farage are deluded on this. Get ready for the People's vote. The Backlash is here.
There is some bunch of Remainers trying to get CLPs to put a motion to conference supporting a 'People's Vote'. Apparently over 100 CLPs have put the motion forward. Including mine, unfortunately.
A couple of people have posted here before the quarterly changes since the referendum as forecast by the shock and severe shock scenarios, along with what has really happened since. Does anyone have a copy of that data or a link to it, I can't find it from Google. I'd also be curious if possible please to see a link to the if we voted remain predictions.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
Well they were invaded on multiple sides in 1948 which ended with a ceasefire and the ceasefire was cancelled by those who had invaded. What does a side at war cancelling a ceasefire mean to you? To me it means the war is active again.
Not sure what you find interesting but a military blockade has historically always been a casus belli. It's never not been one.
So in the face of a military blockade, fight back with anything you've got? Rockets, for example?
Of course in 1967 the Israelis initilally stated that it was Egypt who had made the intial attack, but when that story fell apart they shiftily moved onto the preemptive strike justification - 'The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first'
Yes of course. If someone attempted to blockade the UK militarily I would 100% support rockets etc to be used in any fight back. You wouldn't? You'd sit idly by while we were blockaded? How else do you expect a military blockade to end?
Didn't expect solidarity with Hamas from your direction, but I'm sure those lads will take what they can get.
Mr. Meeks, that is weird. Why donate in that way? Surely, if nefarious (and competent) you'd want to at least try and do it through a means that's legal but obfuscates the true origins?
King Cole, true, but the Harrying was circa 920 years ago and the tweet I reference cited 800 years of evildoing (could've been a little longer, actually).
The Second World War's also in living memory. I recall having a bit of a disagreement with my grandpa over the Germans (I didn't feel they should be held responsible for WWII. He, er, wasn't a fan of them).
950-48 actually (1068-90) The English invasion of Ireland started about 100 years later, when Dairmait of Leinster, who had been deposed by the High King sought English help in recovering his lands.
'Diarmait was a traitor A traitor to his prince. He brought stangers into Ireland. And they’ve been here ever since.'
That Corbyn IRA video during the GE got a lot of views too - views do not necessarily equal any effect.
Wrong. The last meter reading we got from Carlotta was 5.5m. Richard Nabavi was also hung up with that video. I hope it was well made.
I don't quite know what you think I am wrong about. A video might have impact, or be reflective of a change in mood, but the mere presence of a video which gets a lot of views doesn't in itself signify anything.
"Wrong" referred to the 4.2m views.
4.2m is just from that specific tweet that went viral this week. It's been posted elsewhere too, as well as the original from Comedy Central.
When it exceeeds the number of Remain voters we'll talk....
Each click from a non-Labour voted increased the Labour vote. I think it was that video which catapulted Labour from 31% to 40%.
I suspect things like student debt, housing and social care taxes had more to do with it.
King Cole, the Irish had raided and (certainly in the case of what is today Scotland) settled in Britain too.
The Scottish invasion during the reign of Robert the Bruce was so well-received that the English and Irish worked together to defeat it.
Learning history's important but I'll never understand people who cling to grudges when those who perpetrated certain acts lived long ago. I wouldn't expect a German to hate Italians because Caesar committed genocide. We aren't responsible for the sins of our fathers, but should learn from their mistakes to profit from their experience without paying the price that they did to receive the initial lesson.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Germany picked a fight with Poland in 1939 and six years later had to cede vast territories to, er, Poland.
German had taken territory from Poland in the past.
Indeed, compare the map of modern Poland with one of Poland from around 1000 AD:
The borders of Eastern Europe were almost as subject to change as those of the Middle East up until the end of WWII. Indeed interwar Polish Zionists envisaged a Jewish homeland in Eastern Europe as well as Palestine. Subsequent events of course precluded that.
It has been argued that many ..... most ....... East European Jews were not Jews by blood but Khazars, a group from the Caucusus who converted.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
Well they were invaded on multiple sides in 1948 which ended with a ceasefire and the ceasefire was cancelled by those who had invaded. What does a side at war cancelling a ceasefire mean to you? To me it means the war is active again.
Not sure what you find interesting but a military blockade has historically always been a casus belli. It's never not been one.
So in the face of a military blockade, fight back with anything you've got? Rockets, for example?
Of course in 1967 the Israelis initilally stated that it was Egypt who had made the intial attack, but when that story fell apart they shiftily moved onto the preemptive strike justification - 'The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first'
Yes of course. If someone attempted to blockade the UK militarily I would 100% support rockets etc to be used in any fight back. You wouldn't? You'd sit idly by while we were blockaded? How else do you expect a military blockade to end?
Didn't expect solidarity with Hamas from your direction, but I'm sure those lads will take what they can get.
Haha. Israel fanatic done up like a kipper. SO weird that so many hard-right Tories are Israel fanatics.
A couple of people have posted here before the quarterly changes since the referendum as forecast by the shock and severe shock scenarios, along with what has really happened since. Does anyone have a copy of that data or a link to it, I can't find it from Google. I'd also be curious if possible please to see a link to the if we voted remain predictions.
Thanks for anyone who can help.
This one?
Also this:
William
I can't make sense of the graphs.
The OBR's March 2016 forecast effectively assumes a "remain" vote, and theBank Of England numbers are similar not their Brexit forecast. I assume however that the Economists for Brexit were assuming, er, Brexit.
Does that note make them all rather difficult to compare?
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Germany picked a fight with Poland in 1939 and six years later had to cede vast territories to, er, Poland.
It is an intriguing accident of history that helps fuel the situation in the Middle-East that Israel/Palestine being divided occurred at the very end of an era when the redrawing of national boundaries and large population movements were commonplace - and thus the idea not just of Palestinians deserving a home but of specific borders, which were pretty arbitrary (with the exception of Jerusalem, which should've been made an international city imo) has become such a totemic sticking point. National borders have remained largely static since 1950 - other than to split internally, and so we see it through that lens of an inviolable right to not just land but a state on certain borders.
Mr. Meeks, that is weird. Why donate in that way? Surely, if nefarious (and competent) you'd want to at least try and do it through a means that's legal but obfuscates the true origins?
King Cole, true, but the Harrying was circa 920 years ago and the tweet I reference cited 800 years of evildoing (could've been a little longer, actually).
The Second World War's also in living memory. I recall having a bit of a disagreement with my grandpa over the Germans (I didn't feel they should be held responsible for WWII. He, er, wasn't a fan of them).
950-48 actually (1068-90) The English invasion of Ireland started about 100 years later, when Dairmait of Leinster, who had been deposed by the High King sought English help in recovering his lands.
'Diarmait was a traitor A traitor to his prince. He brought stangers into Ireland. And they’ve been here ever since.'
Not sure where that came from.
You can go back a further 500 years to find the man who first started the invasions of Ireland.
That Corbyn IRA video during the GE got a lot of views too - views do not necessarily equal any effect.
Wrong. The last meter reading we got from Carlotta was 5.5m. Richard Nabavi was also hung up with that video. I hope it was well made.
I don't quite know what you think I am wrong about. A video might have impact, or be reflective of a change in mood, but the mere presence of a video which gets a lot of views doesn't in itself signify anything.
"Wrong" referred to the 4.2m views.
4.2m is just from that specific tweet that went viral this week. It's been posted elsewhere too, as well as the original from Comedy Central.
When it exceeeds the number of Remain voters we'll talk....
Each click from a non-Labour voted increased the Labour vote. I think it was that video which catapulted Labour from 31% to 40%.
I suspect things like student debt, housing and social care taxes had more to do with it.
That Titanic video doesn't do a goddamn thing to change anyone's minds. It starts off from a premise that Brexit is bad and proceeds to play to its gallery - remainers - for two minutes.
Whereas the Titanic video simply states "Brexit is bad, har-de-har" ad nauseam, the Austerity video attempts to demonstrate that austerity is wrong. Not bad, but wrong. The aim is to change your mind about something. It's clever becasue it attempts to make it obvious that Labour are right on the economy and the Tories - for all their reputation for fiscal competence - are naive idiots.
It's not enough to make a video your supporters already agree with. It's about attempting to change the minds of the people who disagree with you.
King Cole, the Irish had raided and (certainly in the case of what is today Scotland) settled in Britain too.
The Scottish invasion during the reign of Robert the Bruce was so well-received that the English and Irish worked together to defeat it.
Learning history's important but I'll never understand people who cling to grudges when those who perpetrated certain acts lived long ago. I wouldn't expect a German to hate Italians because Caesar committed genocide. We aren't responsible for the sins of our fathers, but should learn from their mistakes to profit from their experience without paying the price that they did to receive the initial lesson.
There are plenty of people in Britain who are anit-German, as a result of the World Wars but historivcally speaking we’ve been allied with most of what is now German more than we;ve fought them. George V, of course, had to change is surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and I believe some of Victoria’s descendents fought in the German army in both World War.
I was at a Book Group discussion on Friday where we were discussing ‘The Nightingale”, by an American, Kristin Hannah, about two sisters who had to cope with the Occupation. Raised a lot of questions. One member, a very blonde lady, with two blonde daughters reported being abused as Boche in Central France this summer.
Comments
There is also the explosive issue of ethnicity and nationality too, in a world where many have dual nationality. There is also a more fluid attitude to citizenship when a passport is a consumer good, and a form of inherited wealth. I have been musing on this for some weeks.
I mean no insult to Scots or Kurds by the analogy, but both are currently nations without recognised statehood at present.
https://twitter.com/SarahDuggers/status/1029514363122659328
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=40&v=OTJIez1oRZ4
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-45225045
A homeowner has been told she could be breaking the law by parking on her own driveway in Merseyside.
Helen Maloney, of Emmanuel Road, Southport, said she received a letter from Sefton Council as she does not have a dropped kerb and has to drive over the pavement.
I mean, of course that is the case, why wouldn't it be?
Give my best to Seamus.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/girl-3-needed-emergency-surgery-after-fgm-in-london-a3914076.html
Can we have some prosecutions please mr Plod
More importantly, accepted by ALL Arab countries, the PLO and ISRAEL [ then ].
I also feel Hamas will accept if all sides agree at the same time. But the Israelis will not leave the settlements.
That's why.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-242
Not sure what you find interesting but a military blockade has historically always been a casus belli. It's never not been one.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1030486066665537536
Noted.
Of course in 1967 the Israelis initilally stated that it was Egypt who had made the intial attack, but when that story fell apart they shiftily moved onto the preemptive strike justification - 'The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first'
Well, it started as a private initiative, with moneyed Christian fundamentalists arming the Mujihadeen to fight the Russians. Back in the day!
It's nice that you have a pomposity dial that goes up to 11.
What was your point again?
"United Nations Resolution 242, resolution of the United Nations (UN) Security Council passed in an effort to secure a just and lasting peace in the wake of the Six-Day (June) War of 1967, fought primarily between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Israelis supported the resolution because it called on the Arab states to accept Israel’s right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Each of the Arab states eventually accepted it (Egypt and Jordan accepted the resolution from the outset) because of its clause calling for Israel to withdraw from the territories conquered in 1967. The Palestine Liberation Organization rejected it until 1988 because it lacked explicit references to Palestinians. Though never fully implemented, it was the basis of diplomatic efforts to end Arab-Israeli conflicts until the Camp David Accords and remains an important touchstone in any negotiated resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-242
deleted
So there's really no reason to engage with you.
#HerdsonComparisons
(only kidding, David!)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-45231222
it was foreign people coming to take land and kick the locals out.
Which constitutes most of the current debate.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/27/david-cameron-bunch-of-migrants-jibe-pmqs-callous-dehumanising
Dr. Prasannan, hope your family's ok.
Thanks, as far as I know things aren't too bad where they live (Kannur District).
The recall of Stokes is, thus far, not an unmitigated success - and has deprived Rashid of Curran’s footmarks to bowl into.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Działania_podczas_wojny_polsko_niemieckiej_1002-1005.png
But it depends how far back one goes. I saw a tweet the other day (wibbling about the UK, EU, and Ireland) saying that the Republic wouldn't leave the EU for a closer state of affairs with the UK because of 800 years of wickedness.
That's getting quite close to me holding a grudge for the Harrying of the North when 75% of Yorkshiremen ended up dead. It's fortunate I'm not inclined to do so, as the Normans integrated themselves to extinction so I'm not sure against whom said grudge would be held in any case.
https://twitter.com/sanderwagner/status/1030785294222741504?s=21
Was fine until the most recent update
Thanks for anyone who can help.
And no, I don’t mean the drink.
Edited. sp.
Also this:
King Cole, true, but the Harrying was circa 920 years ago and the tweet I reference cited 800 years of evildoing (could've been a little longer, actually).
The Second World War's also in living memory. I recall having a bit of a disagreement with my grandpa over the Germans (I didn't feel they should be held responsible for WWII. He, er, wasn't a fan of them).
Subsequent events of course precluded that.
Page 43 of the report gives the Treasury GDP predictions.
And this is the actual GDP outturn:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/pn2
The English invasion of Ireland started about 100 years later, when Dairmait of Leinster, who had been deposed by the High King sought English help in recovering his lands.
'Diarmait was a traitor
A traitor to his prince.
He brought stangers into Ireland.
And they’ve been here ever since.'
Not sure where that came from.
The Scottish invasion during the reign of Robert the Bruce was so well-received that the English and Irish worked together to defeat it.
Learning history's important but I'll never understand people who cling to grudges when those who perpetrated certain acts lived long ago. I wouldn't expect a German to hate Italians because Caesar committed genocide. We aren't responsible for the sins of our fathers, but should learn from their mistakes to profit from their experience without paying the price that they did to receive the initial lesson.
I can't make sense of the graphs.
The OBR's March 2016 forecast effectively assumes a "remain" vote, and theBank Of England numbers are similar not their Brexit forecast. I assume however that the Economists for Brexit were assuming, er, Brexit.
Does that note make them all rather difficult to compare?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick
Compare it with this Labour video:
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1030353287080554496
Whereas the Titanic video simply states "Brexit is bad, har-de-har" ad nauseam, the Austerity video attempts to demonstrate that austerity is wrong. Not bad, but wrong. The aim is to change your mind about something. It's clever becasue it attempts to make it obvious that Labour are right on the economy and the Tories - for all their reputation for fiscal competence - are naive idiots.
It's not enough to make a video your supporters already agree with. It's about attempting to change the minds of the people who disagree with you.
George V, of course, had to change is surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and I believe some of Victoria’s descendents fought in the German army in both World War.
I was at a Book Group discussion on Friday where we were discussing ‘The Nightingale”, by an American, Kristin Hannah, about two sisters who had to cope with the Occupation. Raised a lot of questions. One member, a very blonde lady, with two blonde daughters reported being abused as Boche in Central France this summer.