politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open

Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick

Thursday's i front page "Cameron plans tax cuts for the middle classes" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers via @olyduff pic.twitter.com/gXr6UzB2Z8

7. I should imagine we will get a Blair again. I never liked the man, I found his smarm offputting, but he struck a chord with most of the voters repeatedly, he seems to have had significant personal character (genuine or not) that people recognized. I assume the bland partisan automatons of the current crop of political elites is in part a reaction to one figure being so dominant, but eventually we will get tired of the flashy non-entities and be willing to elect a Blair type again.

kle4 said:

15. I must say I was unaware you could include such mundane details in the description box. Are there any limitations to what you can put in there, besides such things as racial slurs and the like?

Description – Party candidates can use a party name or description registered with the Electoral Commission and supported by a certificate of authorisation from that party; others can use ‘Independent’ or leave this blank

According to a pack from a few years ago I had from the electoral commission.

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

15. I must say I was unaware you could include such mundane details in the description box. Are there any limitations to what you can put in there, besides such things as racial slurs and the like?

Description – Party candidates can use a party name or description registered with the Electoral Commission and supported by a certificate of authorisation from that party; others can use ‘Independent’ or leave this blank

According to a pack from a few years ago I had from the electoral commission.

Those restrictions do not apply in elections for Parish and Town councils. Non-party candidates in Parish Council elections often leave it blank, or sometimes put things like "housewife" or "farmer" etc.

Hugh said:

2 QTWTAIN

In their defence, it's the most plausible winning scenario they have to cling to; it just seems unlikely to happen.

JohnLoony said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

15. I must say I was unaware you could include such mundane details in the description box. Are there any limitations to what you can put in there, besides such things as racial slurs and the like?

Description – Party candidates can use a party name or description registered with the Electoral Commission and supported by a certificate of authorisation from that party; others can use ‘Independent’ or leave this blank

According to a pack from a few years ago I had from the electoral commission.

Those restrictions do not apply in elections for Parish and Town councils. Non-party candidates in Parish Council elections often leave it blank, or sometimes put things like "housewife" or "farmer" etc.

Or Loony?

kle4 said:

7. I should imagine we will get a Blair again. I never liked the man, I found his smarm offputting, but he struck a chord with most of the voters repeatedly, he seems to have had significant personal character (genuine or not) that people recognized. I assume the bland partisan automatons of the current crop of political elites is in part a reaction to one figure being so dominant, but eventually we will get tired of the flashy non-entities and be willing to elect a Blair type again.

It is easy to remember late period Blair (or his ludicrous transatlantic manifestation) and to forget his pre 01 popularity. His polls were even better than 97 for a long period, with his landslide affected by swingback.

At the time the Labour party had lost 4 elections in a row and was wondering if ever it could retake power. The pendulum swings...

We will see another Blair/Thatcher/Wilson who dominates politics for a generation, but it is hard to see them in the present motley crew of all the main parties.

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

What more can be usefully said? Hamas is deliberately using innocents to hide behind, and the Israeli reaction is so heavy handed that it will create another generation of Jihadis.

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

What more can be usefully said? Hamas is deliberately using innocents to hide behind, and the Israeli reaction is so heavy handed that it will create another generation of Jihadis.

Quite so. Said in years past and no doubt years to come.

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

Is there a book on it ?

Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 8s

YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up one to two points: CON 35%, LAB 37%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

Tonights You Gov LAB 334 CON 274 LD 16 (UKPR)

Ed is crap is PM 9 Months and 8 days to GE 2015

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

What more can be usefully said? Hamas is deliberately using innocents to hide behind, and the Israeli reaction is so heavy handed that it will create another generation of Jihadis.

Quite so. Said in years past and no doubt years to come.

Ignoring the bizarre intellectual apathy of your post, the weird incuriousness, this simply isn't true, anyway.

For various reasons - the rise of social media energising outrage, the scale and determination of the Israeli operation, the obvious rightwing radicalisation of the Israeli people - this new assault on Gaza redefines one of the pivotal conflicts of our era.

What's more, we feel blowback from this conflict in Muslim anger in the UK: many European countries now have significant Muslim populations.

Therefore pretending *it isn't happening* is fatuous, silly and crass.

PB Expects Better.

I am not ignoring it. The whole business saddens me, particularly as I had a very interesting time in Jerusalem some decade ago* , so I have been to some of these places and have friends there.

Like Syria, Iraq, Libya etc. I see very little way that Western countries can help, and more than likely any intervention is likely to backfire. We can try to broker peace, but this is truly a dialogue of the deaf where neither party recognises that the other should exist.

* I was running a teaching course for Palestinian Doctors including clinics across the West Bank. Places like Hebron are fascinating to visit, but visiting there did not provide the easy solutions. The comforts of a Camden armchair and a Twitter account no doubt provide a much better perspective.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 8s

YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up one to two points: CON 35%, LAB 37%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

....and marching down the hill the PB Hodges go.

Life_ina_market_town said:

[10] shows how weak the arguments in favour of the status quo vis-à-vis our relationship with Strasbourg are. It is true that the European Convention on Human Rights was drafted, in part, by British lawyers. Yet when the convention was ratified, there was no right of individual petition to the Strasbourg Court in respect of alleged violations of the convention by the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the piece conflates the rights guaranteed by the convention with the Strasbourg Court's tenuous and incoherent interpretation of them. There is no doubt that the likes of the late Lord Kilmuir would have found the latter incomprehensible, if not preposterous.

An already weak argument sinks further with the bizarre claim that '[h]uman rights are not something that can be repealed or taken away'. The convention is not the word of God. Nor was it written under the aegis of the Holy Spirit. It is inconsistent with a number of other international instruments which give effect to human rights. Human rights are a human invention that may be added to or taken away. The convention may contain useful protections, or it may not, but to pretend it is some sort of divine ordinance, immune from human censure, is as disingenuous as it is absurd.

Not sure about the ECHR, but definitely agree with your second paragraph. I have long thought strange that secular societies can hold to an invisible, unprovable yet immutable set of rights that seen to evolve yet are held to be self evident.

SeanT - I find it hard to believe that Israel think the current bombardment will lead to peace. However perhaps Netanyahu feels it strengthens his own position against his mor liberally minded opponents. Or perhaps they actually want a permanent state of war and provoking Hamas is the way to ensure it? They can hardly be expected to surrender land or stop building settlements if they are under attack all the time.

kle4 said:

7. I should imagine we will get a Blair again. I never liked the man, I found his smarm offputting, but he struck a chord with most of the voters repeatedly, he seems to have had significant personal character (genuine or not) that people recognized. I assume the bland partisan automatons of the current crop of political elites is in part a reaction to one figure being so dominant, but eventually we will get tired of the flashy non-entities and be willing to elect a Blair type again.

When people forget Blair then probably yes, other countries have seen their share of Blair types: Renzi in Italy, Sanchez in Spain, Justin "Bieber" Trudeau in Canada.

People who are popular because they have good looks (but hairspray for brains).
Only after they destroy their countries the public become averse to the Blair types, those who lived under them will never vote for them again but they don't live forever.

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

What more can be usefully said? Hamas is deliberately using innocents to hide behind, and the Israeli reaction is so heavy handed that it will create another generation of Jihadis.

Quite so. Said in years past and no doubt years to come.

Ignoring the bizarre intellectual apathy of your post, the weird incuriousness, this simply isn't true, anyway.

For various reasons - the rise of social media energising outrage, the scale and determination of the Israeli operation, the obvious rightwing radicalisation of the Israeli people - this new assault on Gaza redefines one of the pivotal conflicts of our era.

What's more, we feel blowback from this conflict in Muslim anger in the UK: many European countries now have significant Muslim populations.

Therefore pretending *it isn't happening* is fatuous, silly and crass.

PB Expects Better.

Ignoring that it doesn't, from me or anyone, you presume a lot about my position from my one worn out defeatist statement. I hope you are right this new assault proves pivotal, and I agree totally we feel blowback from it. I'm certainly not ignoring it, I've just reached a despair event horizon which means I get worn out from talking about it and thus have, I hope temporarily, descended into hopelessness on the subject. Personal capacity on that will differ from person to person.

Does PB expect us not to jump to conclusions?

SeanT said:

MarkHopkins said:

Hugh said:

"Hamas is deliberately using innocents to hide behind"

Hospitals, schools, beaches, these Hamas swines seem to hide behind "innocents" all over the place.

It appears to be part of their policy, e.g. like the rockets hidden in UN schools. And when a rocket misfires and hits Gaza, blame it on the Israelis.

As SeanT points out, it means Hamas is "winning" the PR war, but at what price?

I don't believe either side. I believe Hamas ARE deliberately trying to entice Israeli attacks of civilians, yet I also believe Israel IS deliberately trying to kill innocents, destroy infrastructure, and slaughter children, so as to terrorize the people of Gaza into abandoning Hamas.

Given that Israel is meant to be the morally superior "country" we support - as a beacon of democracy blah de blah - it is our ally Israel which must face our righteous anger and condemnation.

Enough. End western support for Israel. I don't want my daughter to die in a suicide bomb provoked by the cruelty of late-stage, tertiary Zionism.

Agreed!

FrankBooth said:

SeanT - I find it hard to believe that Israel think the current bombardment will lead to peace. However perhaps Netanyahu feels it strengthens his own position against his mor liberally minded opponents. Or perhaps they actually want a permanent state of war and provoking Hamas is the way to ensure it? They can hardly be expected to surrender land or stop building settlements if they are under attack all the time.

Who said they want peace?
The current 14 year war is going nicely for Israel, it doesn't affect their economy, government ratings go sky high, right wing jingo parties get all the votes and all at the cost of a few dosen israeli lives every year or so, everyone is happy.
Israel can be at war forever as long as the average israeli likes it and so far they do.

MonikerDiCanio said:

MarkHopkins said:

Hugh said:

"Hamas is deliberately using innocents to hide behind"

Hospitals, schools, beaches, these Hamas swines seem to hide behind "innocents" all over the place.

It appears to be part of their policy, e.g. like the rockets hidden in UN schools. And when a rocket misfires and hits Gaza, blame it on the Israelis.

As SeanT points out, it means Hamas is "winning" the PR war, but at what price?

Mark, it isn't about PR and it's no secret, in fact, it's military doctrine;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

The failed doctrine from the one war that Israel lost and lost badly.

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

What more can be usefully said? Hamas is deliberately using innocents to hide behind, and the Israeli reaction is so heavy handed that it will create another generation of Jihadis.

Quite so. Said in years past and no doubt years to come.

Ignoring the bizarre intellectual apathy of your post, the weird incuriousness, this simply isn't true, anyway.

For various reasons - the rise of social media energising outrage, the scale and determination of the Israeli operation, the obvious rightwing radicalisation of the Israeli people - this new assault on Gaza redefines one of the pivotal conflicts of our era.

What's more, we feel blowback from this conflict in Muslim anger in the UK: many European countries now have significant Muslim populations.

Therefore pretending *it isn't happening* is fatuous, silly and crass.

PB Expects Better.

I

* I was running a teaching course for Palestinian Doctors including clinics across the West Bank. Places like Hebron are fascinating to visit, but visiting there did not provide the easy solutions. The comforts of a Camden armchair and a Twitter account no doubt provide a much better perspective.

With all due respect, f*ck off.

I have been to Israel half a dozen times. I have been to the West Bank, I have been shelled by Gazans in Sderot. I have been to both sides of the Sinai border. I have spoken to Israelis on all sides: soldiers, politicians, spies, settlers, peace campaigners (and felt sympathy for all).

I have also been kidnapped by Hezbollah in south Lebanon and held at gunpoint in a village being shelled and strafed by the IDF. Many people died and I was lucky to escape with my life.

Have you done all of that? No. You haven't. So, with all due etceteras, f*ck off.

So the solution is?

Perhaps to give Hamas more land and power and so they can join the Islamic State?

Or perhaps to stand up to them until they realise that their fanatacism is the cause of their problems?

So, just keep killing Gazans, Right? Thanks for that, Josef Foxinsox Goebbels.

Repulsive.

I think I missed your solution to the conflict, O wise and well travelled one.

Hugh said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

Ignoring the bizarre intellectual apathy of your post, the weird incuriousness, this simply isn't true, anyway.

For various reasons - the rise of social media energising outrage, the scale and determination of the Israeli operation, the obvious rightwing radicalisation of the Israeli people - this new assault on Gaza redefines one of the pivotal conflicts of our era.

What's more, we feel blowback from this conflict in Muslim anger in the UK: many European countries now have significant Muslim populations.

Therefore pretending *it isn't happening* is fatuous, silly and crass.

PB Expects Better.

I

* I was running a teaching course for Palestinian Doctors including clinics across the West Bank. Places like Hebron are fascinating to visit, but visiting there did not provide the easy solutions. The comforts of a Camden armchair and a Twitter account no doubt provide a much better perspective.

With all due respect, f*ck off.

I have been to Israel half a dozen times. I have been to the West Bank, I have been shelled by Gazans in Sderot. I have been to both sides of the Sinai border. I have spoken to Israelis on all sides: soldiers, politicians, spies, settlers, peace campaigners (and felt sympathy for all).

I have also been kidnapped by Hezbollah in south Lebanon and held at gunpoint in a village being shelled and strafed by the IDF. Many people died and I was lucky to escape with my life.

Have you done all of that? No. You haven't. So, with all due etceteras, f*ck off.

So the solution is?

Perhaps to give Hamas more land and power and so they can join the Islamic State?

Or perhaps to stand up to them until they realise that their fanatacism is the cause of their problems?

So, just keep killing Gazans, Right? Thanks for that, Josef Foxinsox Goebbels.

Repulsive.

I think I missed your solution to the conflict, O wise and well travelled one.

"Conflict"?

I think that the deliberate killing of people constitutes conflict, and that is what both parties are doing.

Speedy JFK was considered good looking, as was Clinton and Reagan in his youth were they bad presidents? Just because you have good looks (and even Mitterand had a thing for Maggie) does not necessarily mean

HYUFD said:

Speedy JFK was considered good looking, as was Clinton and Reagan in his youth were they bad presidents? Just because you have good looks (and even Mitterand had a thing for Maggie) does not necessarily mean

No, but when the only thing you have is good looks it is a problem if there is a crisis.

Clinton was fortunate that he became president when america's worst crisis was "where did the president put his cigar".
JFK was overrated, as we have found over the years, the best thing he for did for america was he got shot.
Reagan was very old when he became president and he just read the script written by others.

So... the Argentinian debt crisis is pretty crazy, right?

1 and 5,

1: Because Cameron and Salmond agreed that only the electorate in Scotland can vote.

5: Please stop believing the Engerlish media, most people in Scotland have already decided how they will vote. The consensus has agreed not to talk about their decision because it will cause disharmony, not just between friends, colleagues at work but also in families. Life is more important.

At my last job, there were in my team, a Labour, SNP, Tory and LibDem activists. There was an unwritten and spoken agreement not to get into any political discussion at work. However, and I must admit a certain illicit pleasure, when a jobsworth or similar came to a team meeting to give the latest company BS, they would be taken to pieces.

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

Ignoring the bizarre intellectual apathy of your post, the weird incuriousness, this simply isn't true, anyway.


PB Expects Better.

I

* I was running a teaching course for Palestinian Doctors including clinics across the West Bank. Places like Hebron are fascinating to visit, but visiting there did not provide the easy solutions. The comforts of a Camden armchair and a Twitter account no doubt provide a much better perspective.

With all due respect, f*ck off.

So the solution is?

Perhaps to give Hamas more land and power and so they can join the Islamic State?

Or perhaps to stand up to them until they realise that their fanatacism is the cause of their problems?

So, just keep killing Gazans, Right? Thanks for that, Josef Foxinsox Goebbels.

Repulsive.

I think I missed your solution to the conflict, O wise and well travelled one.

I think an immediate end to new, illegal Israeli settlements, and a dismantling of the extant illegal settlements, is an essential.

The world agrees with this. Everyone agrees with this. Apart from the semi-psychotic Israeli state, which has now decided that permanent occupation of a subjugated people and imposition of apartheid conditions can be squared with the pious claim to be a "western democracy".

Can this be continued indefinitely?

No, it can't. Israel is no longer a western democracy as we understand it. The West needs to accept this, and cease defending the Jewish state come-what-may. Israel is just an unusually prosperous, unusually weird, quasi-theocratic statelet in a region rich in such bizarre geopolitical flora.

Israel does not deserve or merit the unstinting support of the UK - or the USA, for that matter.

Land for peace. Israel should give up land and get peace in return. A wonderful idea.

One tiny little problem: Israel did withdraw from Gaza but did not get peace in return.

You have said what Israel should do. (And I broadly agree with you.) What do you think the Palestinians, represented by Fatah and Hamas, should do?

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

What more can be usefully said? Hamas is deliberately using innocents to hide behind, and the Israeli reaction is so heavy handed that it will create another generation of Jihadis.

Quite so. Said in years past and no doubt years to come.

Ignoring the bizarre intellectual apathy of your post, the weird incuriousness, this simply isn't true, anyway.


PB Expects Better.

I

* perspective.

With all due respect, f*ck off.

So the solution is?

Perhaps to give Hamas more land and power and so they can join the Islamic State?

Or perhaps to stand up to them until they realise that their fanatacism is the cause of their problems?

So, just keep killing Gazans, Right? Thanks for that, Josef Foxinsox Goebbels.

Repulsive.

I think I missed your solution to the conflict, O wise and well travelled one.

I think an immediate end to new, illegal Israeli settlements, and a dismantling of the extant illegal settlements, is an essential.

The world agrees with this. Everyone agrees with this. Apart from the semi-psychotic Israeli state, which has now decided that permanent occupation of a subjugated people and imposition of apartheid conditions can be squared with the pious claim to be a "western democracy".

Can this be continued indefinitely?

No, it can't. Israel is no longer a western democracy as we understand it. The West needs to accept this, and cease defending the Jewish state come-what-may. Israel is just an unusually prosperous, unusually weird, quasi-theocratic statelet in a region rich in such bizarre geopolitical flora.

Israel does not deserve or merit the unstinting support of the UK - or the USA, for that matter.

My solution is simple, the single state solution, a federation of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, 3 countries in one single state.
It solves all the political, military and economic problems and issues in one stroke (like Alexander the Great and the Gordian Knot).

Speedy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FalseFlag said:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.se/2014/07/no-bbc-video-removal-scandal-afterall.html?m=1

Perhaps explains why we haven't had the recording of MH17 and Kiev Air Traffic control communications released.

This needs to be widely shared. I saw the early reports come in -they all mentioned at least one military aircraft involved. Confirmed by Russia's radar images.

The West has presented NO evidence of Russia's complicity in this tragedy. Not no credible evidence, just NO evidence. No recordings from Ukrainian ATC explaining the plane's route/altitude change. No records of where Ukrainian BUK systems were deployed. And on that basis, we've already imposed sanctions that will damage our own economy, and are ratcheting up tensions that could turn into the next world conflict. It's mad.

Look there is no need too, even I saw the tweets from the russian rebels and video that they claimed to have shot down an ukranian SU-25 fighter (I saw them before the plane crash news) at the same time, at the same location as MH-17 but the ukrainians didn't lose a plane there and then.
The russians probably shot down the plane thinking it was a fighter jet, that was my first and only reaction when I heard the news.

If I were a Donetsk separatist (they're not Russians fyi), under aerial bombardment, who had had some recent successes with short-range shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles against Ukrainian aircraft, and I saw a plane fall out of the sky, I would jubilantly tweet that my side had shot down an enemy aircraft too. It's a fair assumption, but one that in this case is very unlikely to be true.
-We know that Ukraine's BUK system was deployed in the area -why. when the rebels have no aircraft?
-We have manifold evidence from many different sources of a military aircraft accompanying the plane. Now no mention of it.
-Ukraine's risible youtube 'evidence' has been widely debunked
-We know that it's a practical impossibility for the rebel's BUK system, which if they do have one, has no radar support, to have hit that plane from where we say their system was situated.
-We know that the plane's route was highly irregular from previous days, and that it was prevented by Ukrainian ATC from flying as high as it wanted to.

Where does that leave you? It leaves me thinking that at the LEAST we need to wait for the results of any enquiry before we put our porcelain delicate economic 'recovery' on the line by lashing out at Russia. America are big enough to fight their own battles.

@TGOHF
The UN is rubbish, mainly because most governments can comprehend "Nations", but fail at the "United" bit.
It's why we keep having wars to end all wars. (as our PB history experts can probably attest.)

Speedy/kle4 I highly doubt he will run again, though he could do a Kerry and would be an effective Treasury Secretary for a GOP President.

Speedy Well would it have been better in retrospect if the less good looking Nixon beat Kennedy? Of course not. Most PMs and presidents are not Hollywood leading man good looking, handsome figures like JFK and Blair are the exception rather than the rule, of the present 3 party leaders here Clegg is probably the best looking, he also has the lowest ratings of all of them!

Speedy said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

kle4 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

Yet another list of talking points which does not reference the Talking Point which is fixating the world. The lead item on Google News. G*za.

G**a.

*aza.

This borders on the ridiculous. Or the deliberately odd.

What more can be usefully said? Hamas is deliberately using innocents to hide behind, and the Israeli reaction is so heavy handed that it will create another generation of Jihadis.

Quite so. Said in years past and no doubt years to come.

Ignoring the bizarre intellectual apathy of your post, the weird incuriousness, this simply isn't true, anyway.


PB Expects Better.

I

* perspective.

With all due respect, f*ck off.

So the solution is?

Perhaps to give Hamas more land and power and so they can join the Islamic State?

Or perhaps to stand up to them until they realise that their fanatacism is the cause of their problems?

So, just keep killing Gazans, Right? Thanks for that, Josef Foxinsox Goebbels.

Repulsive.

I think I missed your solution to the conflict, O wise and well travelled one.

No, it can't. Israel is no longer a western democracy as we understand it. .

My solution is simple, the single state solution, a federation of Israel, Gaza and West Bank

I can see that there would be a certain amount of rancour in such a parliament.

I would very much like both sides to repent of their violent ways and embrace peace, but cannot see it happening soon.

Ten years ago Israel removed its settlements in Gaza and military. I think that far from bringing peace, it allowed the Hamas putsch to bring about the current situation.

I also think it racist to expect Israelis to operate at higher civilisation levels than the Palestinians. If one does not believe that Palestinians are the moral equal of other humans, with the same duties and responsibilities, then it is very demeaning of their culture. The alternative of considering them as barbarians outside the law sounds very much like the worst sort of attitude of Israeli settlers.

@SeanT

How would you deal with states or movements within states (Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah etc) whose stated objective/ideology is the complete elimination of a neighbouring state and the annihilation of that state's people?

Would you not agree that the leaders of armed movements are cowards when they use other people to be suicide bombers on their behalf and they use schools, hospitals etc as human shields?

We have seen how ISIS eliminates all people who do not subject themselves to the wishes/culture/beliefs of ISIS and so like totalitarian regimes eliminate both freedom of movement and thought. How would you deal with them and their backers?

BTW I have travelled probably as widely than you and have spoken with both the leaders and the people of the countries under discussion.

TGOHF said:

Hugh said:

TGOHF said:

The UN is rubbish - pity lefties and handwringers wait until Jews are involved before slagging it off.

Just to be clear.

Are you accusing posters here of racism?

Because that accusation is surely not acceptable on PB.

Have the Israelis killed more than the Assad regime, Isis or Kim in North Korea ? There was no such wailing on here for those poor souls.

I suspect very few people are in the Pro-camp of any of those examples, therefore there is little need to wail about them - almost everyone agrees that they should be condemned, enough said. This conflict at the least stirs contrasting emotions in people and runs all the way to full on support for either side, hesitant attempted neutrality or conditional support for either side. Therefore, there is bound to be more wailing even with horrible things going on elsewhere in the world. Are you saying people are not allowed to criticise one side or the other, or the UN, unless they first condemn ISIS and Kim Jong Un and anyone or anything else that may well be worse? How dare we wail about our own government for anything under that basis?

This conflict is also more longstanding than most, people have a longer history of having opinions on it and being emotionally invested in it.

But no, racism it is.

Agree with SeanT (for once).

The continuing carnage (genocide) in Gaza IS the news....

Hugh said:

Financier said:

@SeanT

How would you deal with states or movements within states (Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah etc) whose stated objective/ideology is the complete elimination of a neighbouring state and the annihilation of that state's people?

Would you not agree that the leaders of armed movements are cowards when they use other people to be suicide bombers on their behalf and they use schools, hospitals etc as human shields?

We have seen how ISIS eliminates all people who do not subject themselves to the wishes/culture/beliefs of ISIS and so like totalitarian regimes eliminate both freedom of movement and thought. How would you deal with them and their backers?

BTW I have travelled probably as widely than you and have spoken with both the leaders and the people of the countries under discussion.

Oh jeeez, yeah, Gazan terrorist cowards are using their children on beaches and UN schools as human shields.

Nuclear bombs, hah! We've got tunnels! Apparently. They're dead good ones, though. Better than the ones in the Great Escape, much more deadly.

Obviously you have never been to Gaza or experienced being among a terrorist organisation and its activities.

Financier said:

We have seen how ISIS eliminates all people who do not subject themselves to the wishes/culture/beliefs of ISIS and so like totalitarian regimes eliminate both freedom of movement and thought. How would you deal with them and their backers?

Nonsense. The Islamic State is clearly prepared to tolerate religious minorities, albeit not heretics or rafida, provided they surrender peacefully, accept dhimmi status, and pay the jizya. It is true that few have taken up the dawla on its offer yet...

HYUFD said:

Speedy Well would it have been better in retrospect if the less good looking Nixon beat Kennedy? Of course not. Most PMs and presidents are not Hollywood leading man good looking, handsome figures like JFK and Blair are the exception rather than the rule, of the present 3 party leaders here Clegg is probably the best looking, he also has the lowest ratings of all of them!

That is because most voters lived under Blair, so they won't vote for any imitation.

As for JFK, forget about Nixon, what would have happened if JFK lived?
No civil rights act, no medicare, no vietnam war, bigger space race, a huge presidential sex scandal, unstable foreign policy.

It would have been like combining the worst qualities and issues of Clinton and Obama.

And as for the exception from the rule, there was no rule before national TV, plus american politics is much more personality dependant that british politics.

Financier said:

murali_s said:

Agree with SeanT (for once).

The continuing carnage (genocide) in Gaza IS the news....

The real news is a resurgent Islam both in the Middle East and Africa and a lack of a co-ordinated approach of how to deal with it.

Well playing "War on Terror the Boardgame" like america is doing since 1980 won't do.
Funding islamic terrorists to get rid of political leaders and governments you don't like will result in much of the islamic world ruled by islamic terrorists in the end.