Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
I wonder how many of the US ones are private/civil rather than state/government? I suspect we know the answer for China....
There is a huge difference between people having a Ring doorbell cameras and a camera on a tall pole in the middle of a street that feeds a government controlled surveillance system. It's stupid to just count the numbers.
I mean personally I have more concern about the Ring doorbell cameras on people's doors. CCTV, from my understanding, has a system of checks to make sure police aren't abusing it. Ring just sells the data straight to the cops (in the US at least), and allows profiteering off of the modern Panopticon.
CCTV in the UK maybe, but not in all other countries.
If people are comparing CCTV numbers in different countries it's idiotic to lump together all the different types of CCTV that exist as though they are the same. China operates massive face recognition CCTV networks, and integrates them with other biometric measures, it's not the same thing as a camera in a corner shop by the till or on somebody's front door. Counting camera numbers is utterly misleading.
What was even more scary was the programme on Al Jazeera a few months ago showing China have developed 'walk recognition' which allows them to identify people even with their faces covered.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Somewhat startling piece on new homes built to low standards of insulation etc. (i.e. low specifications, rather than jerrybuilding). I am sure some are better, but even so ...
I still don't get why more homes are not built with solar panels as standard from the start. Economies of scale would, I assume, make it cheaper, and who is going to otice an extra few grand in the buying price if you are already spending £200K+.
I would have thought thta madating a minimum number of homes in each new development to haev solar panels would be a good way to up provision easily and cheaply.
I mean, because that would increase the construction price and developers dislike having to spend money and the Tories have, since Thatcher really, been in the role of mediating the interests of developers and home owners.
I'll be interested in the details of this Labour plan for modern garden cities. If the idea is just send it out to developers on current specs, it is going to be awful - huge developments of new builds that will last a decade if we're lucky. If Labour do it seriously and put proper specs on things - solar, insulation, maybe even limit the average car per home design and aim to have things build in line with the idea of walkable cities - then it could be great.
I'm not sure that people understand just how wretched new builds tend to be. It isn't universal - some are decent. But for so many (myself included) a new build home quickly shows just how cheaply it was thrown together. My former estate of 1,100 new homes from three builders had serious issues on all house designs from all three builders. So it didn;'t matter what you bought or from whom, it was crap.
In our case we had a house that audibly creaked in windy weather, with cracking plaster on various walls and as we discovered several years after buying it, empty cavity walls where Barratts had "forgotten" to install insulation. On every house they built. To say nothing about the garden made from rubble etc etc etc.
House prices have gone bonkers, yet the housebuilders construct the cheapest possible crap. This is the british problem in full effect - crap product at top money.
Yes - all those are familiar.
I suggest step one in the solution is 100% inspection by BC not sample inspection, especially not sample inspection with the units to be inspected indicated unofficially to the developer.
Since it is now really winter, it is worth taking a walk round new housing estates with a thermal camera to see the extent of a local problem.
Solar panels etc have to be applied by regulation; they will be unlikely to work in the mass market as on the whole buyers will not pay the extra with their own money.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell has been missing the mark quite a bit over the last decade. He’s not really ‘nailed’ a PM since Cameron (the rubber johnny Cam was spot on).
Might’ve been time to move on anyway tbh. Sometimes employers are just waiting for the right excuse (cf Danny Baker at the BBC).
His Starmer is pretty good, so he’s nailed a future pm. Just to prick the consensus I often like Bell’s drawing but his humour tends to the lumbering and hits the target with a 2x4 rather than a rapier. I think he’d be more at home with the scabrous Gilray and Hogarth in the C18th rather than our milquetoast times.
Gilray had a facility for political comment that Bell couldn't dream of, though. Very much the rapier versus the 2x4.
Not averse to crudity in portrayal if not execution though.
Scabrous, but often with a purpose. I've never quite worked out what Bell is trying to say, other than "I hate these people".
The voting system isn't crooked, everyone starts each election with zero votes and then the voters decide. Just put forward what you believe in and convince the most voters to back you. If you can't do that, take some responsibility for your own actions.
And Labour and Lib Dems aren't interchangeable. If they were, they'd be the same party not two very different ones.
FWIW my view is that the LibDems were wrong to target the seat and even now should ease off since it's really clear they're not in a position to win and they're simply increasing the chance that the Tories will hold the seat.
But to respond to your point, after talking to hundreds of voters over the weekend, it's clear that most voters don't see the parties as different in any significant way, and the appeals for tactical voting strengthen that perception (nobody asks for tactical votes from Reform UK, do they?). That might be a mistake - after all, we can all point to policy differences - but they elude the only vaguely engaged voter. After Starmer's move to the centre, and the general perception that the LibDems (and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists, what floating voters see is three similar parties squabbling, and it annoys them. In some cases it even means they don't vote for any of us.
I'm not actually arguing against tactical voting. But it would be good if the non-Tory parties agreed on some basic principles which respect the right of every party to make an effort:
1. The party that sees itself in the best position in win should use phrases like ". The Tories are [usual criticisms]. If you want to vote tactically to get them out, lend us your vote because ...". Don't use voodoo polls or disproportionate bar charts.
2. If a party can see that they're not in a position to win, they should argue for a positive vote. "You only get the chance to say how you think the country should be run every 4-5 years. Don't waste your vote on parochial and negative tactical voting, vote positively for us because..."
You'll still see parties who both think they can win adopting the first strategy, but put like that it avoids actually pissing everyone off, including the voters who we're all trying to impress.
"(and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists"
Corbyn's policies were, in general, popular with the majority of voters. Even the majority of Tory voters are happy with the idea of renationalising lots of essential things - electricity, rail, water. Green policy is radical, that's why I support them, but the "mainstream" idea of where the centre is policy wise is dead off imho.
I don't know the Green Party in Beds, they may be an actual centrist local branch (I consider my branch here in Herts quite centrist). I know lots of Greens in Tory areas tend to be on the pragmatic / conservationist side of the general green movement, versus the more radical wings amongst younger Greens and those from the cities.
Yes, once you got away from the identity politics stuff, a lot of Corbyn's more more traditional politics (nationalisation, what the state spends its money on, etc) were popular. What they were not were credible. People liked them, but didn't believe the money raised by taxing other people would pay for them. So they didn't vote for them.
More people voted Labour in 2017 than at any other time this Century
Yet they still lost to Theresa May. That and the Brexit vote and the 2019 Boris Johnson win makes you despair of this country.
You can't be much of a fan of democracy when more people voted in the Brexit vote - 33.5m - than in general elections.
An interesting thing about the Polish election is that (per this skeet) young people apparently turned out at higher rates than old people. If that gets repeated elsewhere then politics will look completely different.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
I have anti-Zionist Jewish friends with Zionist-Israeli family - they would categorically deny that Israel = Jewishness and visa versa. Sure, they have connections to it through family and history, but they, like many other Jewish people, do not accept this idea that criticism of Israel is criticism of them as Jews or anti-Semitic. I explained my (loose) familial connection to Jewishness and how that made me interested in the history of Jewishness in a previous thread - I won't go into that again. But part of that journey has been learning, as someone who does not identify with Jewishness and was not raised with any cultural understanding of my own familial ties to Jewishness, how strongly some Jewish people reject the notion of association with Israel on the grounds that continues the propagation of the "dual loyalties" trope of Jewish people, as well as political and religious grounds.
It was founded as a Jewish State. As enshrined by the United Nations. What you and your mates think about it is irrelevant.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
"From the river to the sea" is an explicit demand for the destruction of the state of Israel and the removal - whether through deportation or death - of all the Jews currently living there. It is indefensible and hateful and to claim that Jews here would not be affected by it - regardless of their views of the current Israeli government - is disingenuous rubbish.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Actually, I don't blame Balfour.
There was nothing actually *wrong* with the Jews having a land of their own. And. I disagree completely with the notion of Israel being a "colonialist" enterprise, very much the reverse.
The Arab nations got all the oil, and the vast majority of the territory, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
If they could not tolerate the idea of a Jewish State which (at its inception) was about twice the size of Devon, much of it the Negev desert, that is very much on their heads.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
I think that perhaps ascribes too much consistency to Britain's policy in the Mandate.
What is the point of cryptocurrencies and encrypted wallets if you can't keep transfers secret.
IIUC a while back Hamas asked supporters to stop sending them crypto because the senders kept getting traced.
In principle you can send crypto with reasonably good privacy (don't use bitcoins for this) but people seem to have quite a hard time doing it in practice. I remember the people who helped Carlos Ghosn escape from Japan got traced because they tried to make a payment secret by using bitcoins, but what they actually succeeded in doing was transferring money from one Coinbase account to another Coinbase account...
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
I mean you moaned at me late last week specifically for me blaming the British and Western powers...
Following an investigation by an independent investigator appointed by the ICGS, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards upheld five allegations of bullying and one of sexual misconduct. Mr Bone appealed this decision to the IEP. That appeal was dismissed by the IEP sub-panel appointed to consider that case as having raised no substantive grounds.
The sub-panel then determined that Mr Bone should be suspended for six weeks. It stated that:
This is a serious case of misconduct. […] The bullying involved violence, shouting and swearing, mocking, belittling and humiliating behaviour, and ostracism. […]
This wilful pattern of bullying also included an unwanted incident of sexual misconduct, when the complainant was trapped in a room with the respondent in a hotel in Madrid, […]. This was a deliberate and conscious abuse of power using a sexual mechanism: indecent exposure.
Mr Bone appealed the sanction to a fresh IEP sub-panel. They dismissed his appeal, and confirmed the original decision.
If confirmed by the House the suspension will trigger a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015...
IEP recommend Peter Bone MP is suspended for 6 weeks for bullying and sexual misconduct
Part of Rishi's problem is dealing with the consequences of the various right-wing entitled irresponsible blowhards that populate the Tory backbenches. There's never any knowing when one of them might blow up.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
I have anti-Zionist Jewish friends with Zionist-Israeli family - they would categorically deny that Israel = Jewishness and visa versa. Sure, they have connections to it through family and history, but they, like many other Jewish people, do not accept this idea that criticism of Israel is criticism of them as Jews or anti-Semitic. I explained my (loose) familial connection to Jewishness and how that made me interested in the history of Jewishness in a previous thread - I won't go into that again. But part of that journey has been learning, as someone who does not identify with Jewishness and was not raised with any cultural understanding of my own familial ties to Jewishness, how strongly some Jewish people reject the notion of association with Israel on the grounds that continues the propagation of the "dual loyalties" trope of Jewish people, as well as political and religious grounds.
It was founded as a Jewish State. As enshrined by the United Nations. What you and your mates think about it is irrelevant.
So Jewish people are not allowed to say that the state of Israel does not represent them and their idea of Jewishness?
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
I mean you moaned at me late last week specifically for me blaming the British and Western powers...
There is probably not an element of our life today that, I'm guessing, you wouldn't blame "the British and Western powers" for so I have no doubt you are right that I did moan at you for doing it last week.
IEP recommend Peter Bone MP is suspended for 6 weeks for bullying and sexual misconduct
Part of Rishi's problem is dealing with the consequences of the various right-wing entitled irresponsible blowhards that populate the Tory backbenches. There's never any knowing when one of them might blow up.
Indeed. A notable flag-shagging backbencher hasn't attended parliament for over a year now because of *reasons*.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
I have anti-Zionist Jewish friends with Zionist-Israeli family - they would categorically deny that Israel = Jewishness and visa versa. Sure, they have connections to it through family and history, but they, like many other Jewish people, do not accept this idea that criticism of Israel is criticism of them as Jews or anti-Semitic. I explained my (loose) familial connection to Jewishness and how that made me interested in the history of Jewishness in a previous thread - I won't go into that again. But part of that journey has been learning, as someone who does not identify with Jewishness and was not raised with any cultural understanding of my own familial ties to Jewishness, how strongly some Jewish people reject the notion of association with Israel on the grounds that continues the propagation of the "dual loyalties" trope of Jewish people, as well as political and religious grounds.
It was founded as a Jewish State. As enshrined by the United Nations. What you and your mates think about it is irrelevant.
Why ? And "irrelevent" in what respect ?
148grss wasn't denying that Israel is a Jewish state, just saying that criticism of Israel is not, per se antisemitic.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
I have anti-Zionist Jewish friends with Zionist-Israeli family - they would categorically deny that Israel = Jewishness and visa versa. Sure, they have connections to it through family and history, but they, like many other Jewish people, do not accept this idea that criticism of Israel is criticism of them as Jews or anti-Semitic. I explained my (loose) familial connection to Jewishness and how that made me interested in the history of Jewishness in a previous thread - I won't go into that again. But part of that journey has been learning, as someone who does not identify with Jewishness and was not raised with any cultural understanding of my own familial ties to Jewishness, how strongly some Jewish people reject the notion of association with Israel on the grounds that continues the propagation of the "dual loyalties" trope of Jewish people, as well as political and religious grounds.
It was founded as a Jewish State. As enshrined by the United Nations. What you and your mates think about it is irrelevant.
So Jewish people are not allowed to say that the state of Israel does not represent them and their idea of Jewishness?
Tangentially, this illustrates what I'm saying above - for or against, if you're Jewish you're expected to have a view. The relationship, whether you want it or not, is implicit in that.
There are also grid capacity issues sometimes. I know self-builders who have been told they will have to fund an upgrade to the local substation if it is at capacity, and they want say a large solar array of 10kWp (kilowatt peak) or a 3 phase supply - or even if they just want to add their house and it pushes it over the line.
I am surmising it is the same for developers, since that is how it works for schools and road junctions - developer pays for extra required capacity.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So it's impossible to criticize Israel without you viewing it as antisemitic. This explains a lot.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
So Jews who criticise Israel are what? Self haters? Masochists?
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
I mean you moaned at me late last week specifically for me blaming the British and Western powers...
There is probably not an element of our life today that, I'm guessing, you wouldn't blame "the British and Western powers" for so I have no doubt you are right that I did moan at you for doing it last week.
China's treatment of the Uyghurs. Japanese imperialism and the long lasting impacts of that. Russian treatment of indigenous peoples across their land (although this depends on whether you count Russia as "western" - which it has in some parts of its history). Obviously there are some incidents that are down to other historical factors that, whilst maybe not initially or even primarily, not attributable to western nations or imperialism, it still would have likely been a factor.
What is the point of cryptocurrencies and encrypted wallets if you can't keep transfers secret.
IIUC a while back Hamas asked supporters to stop sending them crypto because the senders kept getting traced.
In principle you can send crypto with reasonably good privacy (don't use bitcoins for this) but people seem to have quite a hard time doing it in practice. I remember the people who helped Carlos Ghosn escape from Japan got traced because they tried to make a payment secret by using bitcoins, but what they actually succeeded in doing was transferring money from one Coinbase account to another Coinbase account...
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
So Jews who criticise Israel are what? Self haters? Masochists?
What do you call English people who criticise England?
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
So Jews who criticise Israel are what? Self haters? Masochists?
What do you call English people who criticise England?
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
I have anti-Zionist Jewish friends with Zionist-Israeli family - they would categorically deny that Israel = Jewishness and visa versa. Sure, they have connections to it through family and history, but they, like many other Jewish people, do not accept this idea that criticism of Israel is criticism of them as Jews or anti-Semitic. I explained my (loose) familial connection to Jewishness and how that made me interested in the history of Jewishness in a previous thread - I won't go into that again. But part of that journey has been learning, as someone who does not identify with Jewishness and was not raised with any cultural understanding of my own familial ties to Jewishness, how strongly some Jewish people reject the notion of association with Israel on the grounds that continues the propagation of the "dual loyalties" trope of Jewish people, as well as political and religious grounds.
It was founded as a Jewish State. As enshrined by the United Nations. What you and your mates think about it is irrelevant.
Why ? And "irrelevent" in what respect ?
148grss wasn't denying that Israel is a Jewish state, just saying that criticism of Israel is not, per se antisemitic.
I deny that Israel is a Jewish state in the sense that it represents or in fact is definitional to what it means to be a Jewish person. In the same way you can say Britain is an Anglican state - I don't think Anglican is inextricable from Britishness; you can be British in a way that does not relate to Anglicanism and be Anglican in a way that does not relate to Britishness.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
No, no, no.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism and criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic.
IEP recommend Peter Bone MP is suspended for 6 weeks for bullying and sexual misconduct
Part of Rishi's problem is dealing with the consequences of the various right-wing entitled irresponsible blowhards that populate the Tory backbenches. There's never any knowing when one of them might blow up.
Indeed. A notable flag-shagging backbencher hasn't attended parliament for over a year now because of *reasons*.
Missed a space there, I think.
He's a "not able" backbencher.
(OK, I'm being slightly unfair for the sake of recycling an old joke. He is an effective electoral campaigner, with a style that's a good fit for the place he represents. But having made the back benches, he barely and briefly got off them.)
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
So Jews who criticise Israel are what? Self haters? Masochists?
What do you call English people who criticise England?
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
...The Arab nations got all the oil, and the vast majority of the territory, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire...
That's a pretty inaccurate precis. The first major oil discovery in the region was in Persia, which isn't Arab. Saudi oil wasn't found until 1938; prior to that it wasn't thought there were significant reserves on the peninsula.
The issues around Palestine are not well connected to any of that.
Lord Nelsons? Looked more like a French uniform to me...
Hard to tell from the front tbf.
It might be fake news, but it has been reported that some England fans were chucked out during last night's match. (And I suspect the blokes in the footage aren't the greatest experts on early nineteenth-century military dress.)
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
No, no, no.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism.
It is complicated by the fact that there is only one Jewish country, and it is unusual in how it came to be. Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion, don't forget.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
No, no, no.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism.
Jewishness is complicated because it is a religion and a race - hence the existence of secular Jewish people. I think that leads to part of this paradox (that Israel is arguably the state of the people of the Jewish race) but, again, I feel that that interpretation again fits in with anti-Semitic tropes of "dual loyalty" - with people who were never born in Israel, never desired to go to Israel, and never having a connection to Israel (but possibly do have deep roots in whatever country they do happen to live in) are somehow still citizens of or representative of Israel.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
So Jews who criticise Israel are what? Self haters? Masochists?
What do you call English people who criticise England?
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
No, no, no.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism.
Israel was founded as a Jewish State. I mean that is why there's all this kerfuffle right now.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
I mean you moaned at me late last week specifically for me blaming the British and Western powers...
There is probably not an element of our life today that, I'm guessing, you wouldn't blame "the British and Western powers" for so I have no doubt you are right that I did moan at you for doing it last week.
Pretty much everything that happens today is affected, in some way, by past events, even some that took place a very long time ago.
The whole history of Israel/Palestine is affected greatly by the actions of the Roman Empire towards its Jewish minority.
It seems logical that if one blames "The West" (ie USA and Europe) for the bad things that have taken place over the past 250 years (because, they have shaped the modern world) , then logically, they must be given credit for the good things (primarily, the huge rise in global living standards over that period).
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
In general people don't care about detailed policies. People don't read manifestos. I suspect that it is rare that a voter would agree with every policy in a manifesto if they cared to read it. There are typically dozens of policies.
People vote for a leader that they approve of and has a positive slogan and demeanour, not detailed policies.
Coalitions represent a majority of electors views, rather than the minority elected dictatorships we have to endure under FPTP.
That is clearly rubbish. The idea that a coalition is simply combining the votes of all those who voted for both parties is an assumption that cannot be made. The only thingh a coalition can be said to represent is the compromise views of the party leaders and, initially at least, the majority of the whipped views of the MPs.
That is clearly rubbish. A coalition is an agreement between the [two] parties on a slate of policies that they can both agree on. It therefore excludes unpopular policies that elected dictatorships under FPTP impose on the majority. Anyone can see that, with a bit of thought.
Really? I am sure most Lib Dems would be surprised to hear you say that regarding tuition fees (to take just one example amongst many)
I actually see that as a wonderful example that parties abandoning key manifesto committments in colaition negotiations can indeed end up making them pay for it in subsequent elections. Under any electoral system, the Lib Dems would have received a pasting after that.
So, yes, politicians would have to bear in mind that electors will have key commitments that they would not accept parties trading away. And it would make those politicians' task more difficult.
Fine by me. Them being kept on their toes out of concern for what electors will think and will hold against them in future is a feature rather than a bug, and if it means they have to think and work harder to work it out - well, they'd better take a good look at which members of their party did better, which wings did better (under STV), which statements went down better electorally and so forth.
Except they won't. When they get back into power in coalition next time they will make similar mistakes and compromises that will alienate large parts of their electorate for another few years.
Remember that the coalition was also the government of austerity that everyone attacks so vehemently these days.
It would have been worse had it been a majority Tory government!
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
Israel doesn't have a right to exist. It has lots of rights including a right to self-defence, but not a right to existence. States do not have a right to existence. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union all ceased to exist without their rights being violated.
Not everyone who uses this term is being sneaky intentionally but I think the reason someone invented this weird, slightly philosophical term is because they're trying to conflate "a country has the right to not be invaded" which is uncontroversial with "there must be a majority Jewish state with Judaism as its official religion" which is controversial.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
Shades here of 'taking the knee' meaning support for marxist revolution and the abolition of the family.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
No, no, no.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism and criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic.
It is a little more complicated than that, though, when the state in question identifies as an Islamic, or Jewish,, or Hindu, or Catholic state. More so in the case of Israel, which is as much a secular as a religious Jewish state - and which, like us, has a partly uncodified constitution.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
Israel doesn't have a right to exist. It has lots of rights including a right to self-defence, but not a right to existence. States do not have a right to existence. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union all ceased to exist without their rights being violated.
Not everyone who uses this term is being sneaky intentionally but I think the reason someone invented this weird, slightly philosophical term is because they're trying to conflate "a country has the right to not be invaded" which is uncontroversial with "there must be a majority Jewish state with Judaism as its official religion" which is controversial.
Perhaps when they say "right to exist" they use it as shorthand for "we believe in the validity of UN 181". It is of course perfectly understandable that people think that UN 181 is controversial and that there should never have been a Jewish State established in the Middle East.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
"From the river to the sea" is an explicit demand for the destruction of the state of Israel and the removal - whether through deportation or death - of all the Jews currently living there. It is indefensible and hateful and to claim that Jews here would not be affected by it - regardless of their views of the current Israeli government - is disingenuous rubbish.
Would you feel safer as a citizen of Gaza or of Haifa Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? Which of those places would give your children the best chance of survival into middle age? Which would permnit you the opportunity to travel or live with a reasonable dehree of freedom? Or of being in control of your own water supply or electricity or even when you can enter or leave your country?
These river to the sea platitudes are meaningless. Read some of the interviews with the Israeli Minister of Homeland Security if you want to read chilling nonsense. I have several relatives who move freely between the UK and Israel without fear or hindrance. That is not the case for a Gazan. And isnt there an irony that I can have an Israeli passport but many who were born there and lived there for many generations can't?
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
No, no, no.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism.
Israel was founded as a Jewish State. I mean that is why there's all this kerfuffle right now.
You are doing it again! Because Israel is a Jewish state, it does not follow that criticism of israel is criticism of Judaism.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
Israel doesn't have a right to exist. It has lots of rights including a right to self-defence, but not a right to existence. States do not have a right to existence. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union all ceased to exist without their rights being violated.
Not everyone who uses this term is being sneaky intentionally but I think the reason someone invented this weird, slightly philosophical term is because they're trying to conflate "a country has the right to not be invaded" which is uncontroversial with "there must be a majority Jewish state with Judaism as its official religion" which is controversial.
Perhaps when they say "right to exist" they use it as shorthand for "we believe in the validity of UN 181". It is of course perfectly understandable that people think that UN 181 is controversial and that there should never have been a Jewish State established in the Middle East.
I don't think it's shorthand for that, UN 181 is a plan to split the territory in a way that nobody currently advocates.
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship." Michael Meadowcroft
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
In the case of "people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives", it does.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
I do do a lot of activism - and have done since university; so probably.
My favourite chant at demos - which I am sure you will all deplore - is "get those animals off those horses" when dealing with police cavalry (this comes out of my experience as a horse rider when I was young and liking and respecting horses, as well as my experience of being at demos when police cavalry decided to charge into people)
Lord Nelsons? Looked more like a French uniform to me...
Hard to tell from the front tbf.
It might be fake news, but it has been reported that some England fans were chucked out during last night's match. (And I suspect the blokes in the footage aren't the greatest experts on early nineteenth-century military dress.)
Uniforms weren't that fixed at the time, at least in the RN. The officer's blue coat was a pretty civilian style to begin with. And it depended what the rig of the day was. But the epaulettes and cuff stripe in the fighting gents do seem to correspond to RN Admirals c. 1805, very crudely. And, in particular, the ornament on the hat looks like a crap attempt at Nelson's famous clockwork chelengk, which very specifically fixes the target. I suspect bought from a fancy dress shop of the kind which sells abominable attempts at saucy "nurses' uniforms* and the like for parties.
Lord Nelsons? Looked more like a French uniform to me...
Hard to tell from the front tbf.
It might be fake news, but it has been reported that some England fans were chucked out during last night's match. (And I suspect the blokes in the footage aren't the greatest experts on early nineteenth-century military dress.)
Uniforms weren't that fixed at the time, at least in the RN. The officer's blue coat was a pretty civilian style to begin with. And it depended what the rig of the day was. But the epaulettes and cuff stripe in the fighting gents do seem to correspond to RN Admirals c. 1805, very crudely. And, in particular, the ornament on the hat looks like a crap attempt at Nelson's famous clockwork chelengk, which very specifically fixes the target. I suspect bought from a fancy dress shop of the kind which sells abominable attempts at saucy "nurses' uniforms* and the like for parties.
Was that asterisk going to lead to a note of the shop's address? Asking for a friend.
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship." Michael Meadowcroft
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
No, no, no.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism.
Jewishness is complicated because it is a religion and a race - hence the existence of secular Jewish people. I think that leads to part of this paradox (that Israel is arguably the state of the people of the Jewish race) but, again, I feel that that interpretation again fits in with anti-Semitic tropes of "dual loyalty" - with people who were never born in Israel, never desired to go to Israel, and never having a connection to Israel (but possibly do have deep roots in whatever country they do happen to live in) are somehow still citizens of or representative of Israel.
I agree with this.
I strongly disagree with the statement that criticising Israel is by definition anti-semitic.
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship." Michael Meadowcroft
I think that has been used before. (Possibly about Reg Prentice?)
I have no doubt, I am sure I've seen it before. Funny though.
Edit, I might have guessed: "Commenting on a 1920’s Conservative member who was standing as a Liberal in a by-election, Churchill said it was the only instance of a rat swimming towards a sinking ship."
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship." Michael Meadowcroft
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
In general people don't care about detailed policies. People don't read manifestos. I suspect that it is rare that a voter would agree with every policy in a manifesto if they cared to read it. There are typically dozens of policies.
People vote for a leader that they approve of and has a positive slogan and demeanour, not detailed policies.
Coalitions represent a majority of electors views, rather than the minority elected dictatorships we have to endure under FPTP.
That is clearly rubbish. The idea that a coalition is simply combining the votes of all those who voted for both parties is an assumption that cannot be made. The only thingh a coalition can be said to represent is the compromise views of the party leaders and, initially at least, the majority of the whipped views of the MPs.
That is clearly rubbish. A coalition is an agreement between the [two] parties on a slate of policies that they can both agree on. It therefore excludes unpopular policies that elected dictatorships under FPTP impose on the majority. Anyone can see that, with a bit of thought.
Really? I am sure most Lib Dems would be surprised to hear you say that regarding tuition fees (to take just one example amongst many)
I actually see that as a wonderful example that parties abandoning key manifesto committments in colaition negotiations can indeed end up making them pay for it in subsequent elections. Under any electoral system, the Lib Dems would have received a pasting after that.
So, yes, politicians would have to bear in mind that electors will have key commitments that they would not accept parties trading away. And it would make those politicians' task more difficult.
Fine by me. Them being kept on their toes out of concern for what electors will think and will hold against them in future is a feature rather than a bug, and if it means they have to think and work harder to work it out - well, they'd better take a good look at which members of their party did better, which wings did better (under STV), which statements went down better electorally and so forth.
Except they won't. When they get back into power in coalition next time they will make similar mistakes and compromises that will alienate large parts of their electorate for another few years.
Remember that the coalition was also the government of austerity that everyone attacks so vehemently these days.
It would have been worse had it been a majority Tory government!
In general FPTP provides an easier path to fruition for extreme and divisive policies.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
or Leon's cab drivers and/or his leftist pals who miraculously have seen the anti-woke light.
Lord Nelsons? Looked more like a French uniform to me...
Hard to tell from the front tbf.
It might be fake news, but it has been reported that some England fans were chucked out during last night's match. (And I suspect the blokes in the footage aren't the greatest experts on early nineteenth-century military dress.)
Uniforms weren't that fixed at the time, at least in the RN. The officer's blue coat was a pretty civilian style to begin with. And it depended what the rig of the day was. But the epaulettes and cuff stripe in the fighting gents do seem to correspond to RN Admirals c. 1805, very crudely. And, in particular, the ornament on the hat looks like a crap attempt at Nelson's famous clockwork chelengk, which very specifically fixes the target. I suspect bought from a fancy dress shop of the kind which sells abominable attempts at saucy "nurses' uniforms* and the like for parties.
Was that asterisk going to lead to a note of the shop's address? Asking for a friend.
Finger trouble! Though if you want one, Amazon is no doubt your friend's friend. But plenty of cheap and cheerful newsagents stock such things. I did check Amazon for Admiral Nelson costumes and at least two are to be had, as well as, slightly disconcertingly, a Pope costume (one does wonder). I did refrain from lookinf for nurse costumes for obvious reasons.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
or Leon's cab drivers and/or his leftist pals who miraculously have seen the anti-woke light.
TBF there is (unfortunately) a kind of "no war but class war" lefty (typically older straight white guy) who believes that focussing on "identity politics" is somehow divisive (as if the working class are not disproportionately non white, non straight, non cis, etc)
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Actually, I don't blame Balfour.
The problem with the Balfour Declaration was that it was never implemented in its entirety. The declaration said that "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
Unfortunately, the establishment of Israel in 1948 definitely prejudiced the civil rights of many of the Arab Palestinians who fled or were driven out of their homes in the new country, and have never been allowed back by the Israeli government, despite UN GA resolution 194 calling for refugees to be allowed to return home "at the earliest possible date". Israel offered to accept a minority of them in 1949 in exchange for a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab world but this never happened.
Hence seven decades of bitterness, hatred, death, etc.
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship." Michael Meadowcroft
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship." Michael Meadowcroft
It should perhaps be noted that Michael Meadowcroft is a former MP, who left Ashdown's Lib Dems for the continuing Liberals, so knows what he's talking about in that regard. He did later rejoin the Lib Dems.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
or Leon's cab drivers and/or his leftist pals who miraculously have seen the anti-woke light.
TBF there is (unfortunately) a kind of "no war but class war" lefty (typically older straight white guy) who believes that focussing on "identity politics" is somehow divisive (as if the working class are not disproportionately non white, non straight, non cis, etc)
...and there are also the inventions of an overactive writer's mind.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
Shades here of 'taking the knee' meaning support for marxist revolution and the abolition of the family.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
I do do a lot of activism - and have done since university; so probably.
My favourite chant at demos - which I am sure you will all deplore - is "get those animals off those horses" when dealing with police cavalry (this comes out of my experience as a horse rider when I was young and liking and respecting horses, as well as my experience of being at demos when police cavalry decided to charge into people)
I'm sure you regard that as the height of humour. So presumably you think no-one should ride horses? In which case are you ok if we shoot them all (or just sterilize them so no more are born?)
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Actually, I don't blame Balfour.
The problem with the Balfour Declaration was that it was never implemented in its entirety. The declaration said that "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
Unfortunately, the establishment of Israel in 1948 definitely prejudiced the civil rights of many of the Arab Palestinians who fled or were driven out of their homes in the new country, and have never been allowed back by the Israeli government, despite UN GA resolution 194 calling for refugees to be allowed to return home "at the earliest possible date". Israel offered to accept a minority of them in 1949 in exchange for a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab world but this never happened.
Hence seven decades of bitterness, hatred, death, etc.
Had Resolution 181 been accepted by Arab Governments, I believe that most Palestinian suffering would have been avoided.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
I do do a lot of activism - and have done since university; so probably.
My favourite chant at demos - which I am sure you will all deplore - is "get those animals off those horses" when dealing with police cavalry (this comes out of my experience as a horse rider when I was young and liking and respecting horses, as well as my experience of being at demos when police cavalry decided to charge into people)
I'm sure you regard that as the height of humour. So presumably you think no-one should ride horses? In which case are you ok if we shoot them all (or just sterilize them so no more are born?)
No, we have socialised horses to such a degree they kind of like being ridden based on my understanding (although race horses dying doing jumps and races is bad and shouldn't happen). That chant is directly aimed at and only for police cavalry (I haven't been on an anti hunt demo, yet, so don't know if they also use the chant).
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
No, no, no.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism and criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic.
Criticising a religion is not necessarily unacceptable imo. But criticising an ethnicity always is.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
or Leon's cab drivers and/or his leftist pals who miraculously have seen the anti-woke light.
TBF there is (unfortunately) a kind of "no war but class war" lefty (typically older straight white guy) who believes that focussing on "identity politics" is somehow divisive (as if the working class are not disproportionately non white, non straight, non cis, etc)
Ahem (cracks knuckles)
In the end, the sole dividing line in economics is wealth, and the crucial dividing line in politics is the power exerted by the rich over the poor. This was true in the third millennium BC, true at the time of the Romans, true during the Middle Ages and true now.
Somewhat startling piece on new homes built to low standards of insulation etc. (i.e. low specifications, rather than jerrybuilding). I am sure some are better, but even so ...
I still don't get why more homes are not built with solar panels as standard from the start. Economies of scale would, I assume, make it cheaper, and who is going to otice an extra few grand in the buying price if you are already spending £200K+.
I would have thought thta madating a minimum number of homes in each new development to haev solar panels would be a good way to up provision easily and cheaply.
IMO nearly everybody will notice a few extra grand on the buying price, because you can get a posher kitchen, more furniture, a small conservatory, or a posh holiday, or a car, instead of slightly lower bills each month for 10 years.
The values of our culture are "I want it NOW", rather than "let's spend now for the future benefits".
Why do people in older houses (yes I know you have an unusual situation - most eg 1930s semis or 1980ss 3-beds are not listed) do not invest in their properties to cut their heating bills by half?
It's a very small minority who do the investment.
Surely it's because the cost/benefit ratios often aren't very good. I halved my gas bill by putting in a wood burner, it cost my under £1k to save £600 a year. I'm not going to be fitting triple glazing at a likely cost of £3k to save me £100 a year, the payback time is probably longer than the life of the windows. My parents have a fancy solar + batteries install on their new house, it's taken their electricity bill to almost zero. It cost £14k. If I put that on my house, it would be a payback time of over 20 years, given my current electricity bill is £55/month.
In my situation, and I'm not that unusual, there’s the additional fact that I'm likely to have a family and want to sell up and upsize in the next 3-5 years. Given that I'm unlikely to get much more for the house when sold with extra insulation etc than without, anything with a payback time of over 5 years probably loses me money (even if it's great for the next owner).
Absolutely agree - balances affect decisions.
If you have upgraded your fabric to reduce your heating bills by 90-95% over a typical house to say £200 a year, then spending £1k on a complicated house control system, or £Xk on something to save energy when the payback period - due to other investment - is now 50 or 200 years.
It is not uncommon for people building passive (whether registered or not) houses to have no central heating, and just a couple of towel radiators or plug in fan heaters for the two or three weeks a year when it is cold. And if they do install underfloor heating it might just be a Willis Heater (ie traditional immersion heater) rather than a Heat Pump. This has been the case for at least a decade - Grand Designs gimmick-mongering is history.
But the higher quality fabric has saved the emissions anyway through lowering demand.
A house could feasibly be routinely heated by the body heat from about 3 dogs and 2 people, and normal activities like cooking and hot showers. So you just need a small boost available for when it freezes.
Overheating in such houses is a far larger issue than heating in the first place.
One of the issues has long been that investment is not reflected in market value, although the trend has been in that direction for a long time. One way to deal with that is to require houses to be upgraded before they are sold, or introduce differential rates of Stamp Duty or Council Tax by EPC Grade.
We are now at a stage where rental values (for example) will vary for say an EOC-B over an EPC-D. That has been the case for about 5-6 years now.
My strategy has been buy, invest and hold. It gives time for payback, gives a modestly higher rent and much lower tenant bills, keeps them happy and makes them stay - which avoids the most expensive thing in landlording, changing tenants.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
No, no, no.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism.
Israel was founded as a Jewish State. I mean that is why there's all this kerfuffle right now.
You are doing it again! Because Israel is a Jewish state, it does not follow that criticism of israel is criticism of Judaism.
This is a bit like may I refer my hon friend to my previous answer.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
I think you need to look at what the Act actually says and the statements that have been made. Some of them went way beyond attacking the policies of the Israeli government. They seem to me to fall squarely within the definition of "glorification" of the "commission" of acts of terrorism, as defined, both in the past and future.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
"From the river to the sea" is an explicit demand for the destruction of the state of Israel and the removal - whether through deportation or death - of all the Jews currently living there. It is indefensible and hateful and to claim that Jews here would not be affected by it - regardless of their views of the current Israeli government - is disingenuous rubbish.
Would you feel safer as a citizen of Gaza or of Haifa Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? Which of those places would give your children the best chance of survival into middle age? Which would permnit you the opportunity to travel or live with a reasonable dehree of freedom? Or of being in control of your own water supply or electricity or even when you can enter or leave your country?
These river to the sea platitudes are meaningless. Read some of the interviews with the Israeli Minister of Homeland Security if you want to read chilling nonsense. I have several relatives who move freely between the UK and Israel without fear or hindrance. That is not the case for a Gazan. And isnt there an irony that I can have an Israeli passport but many who were born there and lived there for many generations can't?
"River to the sea" is not a meaningless platitude. What the Hamas Charter says is not a meaningless platitude. It led to the horrors that happened a week ago, of which we are still finding out the utterly horrific details.
My main concern, frankly, is for my Jewish friends and Jewish family members who feel more fearful living here because of the hatred, lack of empathy and, in some cases, glee expressed by so many at the atrocities perpetrated on people because they are Jewish or, in the case of Arabs, Muslims and others, killed because they were with or seeking to help Jewish people under attack.
The lack of human empathy, the rush to attack Israel for wanting to protect itself, the rush to blame the victims is indecent and unseemly and horrible and is, in many cases, motivated by anti-Jewish hatred. Only fools deny this.
Of course criticism of the Israeli government is not automatically or necessarily anti-Semitic. There are - as I have said ad nauseam - criticisms, serious ones, to be made of the Israeli government - ones made in good faith, ones of what they have done and of what they plan to do now. But again only a fool would deny that there are plenty of anti-semites who are not making criticisms in good faith and who use the "I'm only criticising the government" as a convenient cover for their anti-Semitism. A pity there are so many fools who fall for it.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
or Leon's cab drivers and/or his leftist pals who miraculously have seen the anti-woke light.
TBF there is (unfortunately) a kind of "no war but class war" lefty (typically older straight white guy) who believes that focussing on "identity politics" is somehow divisive (as if the working class are not disproportionately non white, non straight, non cis, etc)
Well it's certainly true that the working class are disproportionately non-white, since most immigrants arrive at the bottom end of the social scale. My view is that is is far more of a disadvantage to be poor than it is to be non-white, and where non-white people have poorer outcomes this is the number one explanatory factor.
As to whether the working class are disproportionately non straight, non cis - it certainly isn't immediately obvious this is the case, though I'd be interested to see some stats.
So it's impossible to criticize Israel without you viewing it as antisemitic. This explains a lot.
As an aside, and appreciating I'm chucking myself into a flaming mess but:
If criticising Israel is automatically antisemetic, is criticising another religious state automatically anti-whatever. For instance, criticising the United Kingdom is automatically anti-protestant?
If it is, is this a good thing? If it isn't, is that because Israel is the only Jewish state in the world?
If so, would it help if Paraguay declared itself to be a Jewish state? Would that allow criticism of Israel the state, or would it simply mean that you couldn't criticise Paraguay either?
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Actually, I don't blame Balfour.
The problem with the Balfour Declaration was that it was never implemented in its entirety. The declaration said that "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
Unfortunately, the establishment of Israel in 1948 definitely prejudiced the civil rights of many of the Arab Palestinians who fled or were driven out of their homes in the new country, and have never been allowed back by the Israeli government, despite UN GA resolution 194 calling for refugees to be allowed to return home "at the earliest possible date". Israel offered to accept a minority of them in 1949 in exchange for a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab world but this never happened.
Hence seven decades of bitterness, hatred, death, etc.
Yes indeed but I think you should expand "...the establishment of Israel in 1948.." to include something along the lines of "when five Arab nations invaded the country to try to destroy it".
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
Comments
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
I suggest step one in the solution is 100% inspection by BC not sample inspection, especially not sample inspection with the units to be inspected indicated unofficially to the developer.
Since it is now really winter, it is worth taking a walk round new housing estates with a thermal camera to see the extent of a local problem.
Solar panels etc have to be applied by regulation; they will be unlikely to work in the mass market as on the whole buyers will not pay the extra with their own money.
I've never quite worked out what Bell is trying to say, other than "I hate these people".
There was nothing actually *wrong* with the Jews having a land of their own. And. I disagree completely with the notion of Israel being a "colonialist" enterprise, very much the reverse.
The Arab nations got all the oil, and the vast majority of the territory, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
If they could not tolerate the idea of a Jewish State which (at its inception) was about twice the size of Devon, much of it the Negev desert, that is very much on their heads.
In principle you can send crypto with reasonably good privacy (don't use bitcoins for this) but people seem to have quite a hard time doing it in practice. I remember the people who helped Carlos Ghosn escape from Japan got traced because they tried to make a payment secret by using bitcoins, but what they actually succeeded in doing was transferring money from one Coinbase account to another Coinbase account...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1713589401194811467
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
The complainant made his complaint to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) in October 2021, having first complained to the Conservative Party in 2017. The ICGS investigation began in September 2022 after the complainant withdrew from the Conservative Party process which had not yet concluded.
Following an investigation by an independent investigator appointed by the ICGS, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards upheld five allegations of bullying and one of sexual misconduct. Mr Bone appealed this decision to the IEP. That appeal was dismissed by the IEP sub-panel appointed to consider that case as having raised no substantive grounds.
The sub-panel then determined that Mr Bone should be suspended for six weeks. It stated that:
This is a serious case of misconduct. […] The bullying involved violence, shouting and swearing, mocking, belittling and humiliating behaviour, and ostracism. […]
This wilful pattern of bullying also included an unwanted incident of sexual misconduct, when the complainant was trapped in a room with the respondent in a hotel in Madrid, […]. This was a deliberate and conscious abuse of power using a sexual mechanism: indecent exposure.
Mr Bone appealed the sanction to a fresh IEP sub-panel. They dismissed his appeal, and confirmed the original decision.
If confirmed by the House the suspension will trigger a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015...
Given we've had Pincher, and now Bone - surely nominative determinism suggest that we ought to look a bit closer at Greg Hands?
And "irrelevent" in what respect ?
148grss wasn't denying that Israel is a Jewish state, just saying that criticism of Israel is not, per se antisemitic.
He will now have to argue his case in the House. Like the Pincher.
There are also grid capacity issues sometimes. I know self-builders who have been told they will have to fund an upgrade to the local substation if it is at capacity, and they want say a large solar array of 10kWp (kilowatt peak) or a 3 phase supply - or even if they just want to add their house and it pushes it over the line.
I am surmising it is the same for developers, since that is how it works for schools and road junctions - developer pays for extra required capacity.
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. A country cannot be a religion.
Criticising the policies and actions of a country's government is not criticising a religion nor the people who belong to a religion.
Everyone should have the right to criticise the policies and actions of any country's government. Not being able to do is indicative of a totalitarian state.
Criticising or attacking people based on their religion is a completely different thing, and is never acceptable.
Putting it another way criticism of Iran is not anti-islam, criticism of Italy is not anti-Roman-Catholic, criticism of India is not anti-hinduism and criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic.
He's a "not able" backbencher.
(OK, I'm being slightly unfair for the sake of recycling an old joke. He is an effective electoral campaigner, with a style that's a good fit for the place he represents. But having made the back benches, he barely and briefly got off them.)
The first major oil discovery in the region was in Persia, which isn't Arab. Saudi oil wasn't found until 1938; prior to that it wasn't thought there were significant reserves on the peninsula.
The issues around Palestine are not well connected to any of that.
I am also sure the Chancellor won't welcome this so close to his autumn statement.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/liz-truss-task-force-to-unveil-rival-growth-budget-days-before-autumn-statement/ar-AA1ieXE9?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=185c57b28e254446a7c4c3276378329a&ei=12
The whole history of Israel/Palestine is affected greatly by the actions of the Roman Empire towards its Jewish minority.
It seems logical that if one blames "The West" (ie USA and Europe) for the bad things that have taken place over the past 250 years (because, they have shaped the modern world) , then logically, they must be given credit for the good things (primarily, the huge rise in global living standards over that period).
Not everyone who uses this term is being sneaky intentionally but I think the reason someone invented this weird, slightly philosophical term is because they're trying to conflate "a country has the right to not be invaded" which is uncontroversial with "there must be a majority Jewish state with Judaism as its official religion" which is controversial.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
These river to the sea platitudes are meaningless. Read some of the interviews with the Israeli Minister of Homeland Security if you want to read chilling nonsense. I have several relatives who move freely between the UK and Israel without fear or hindrance. That is not the case for a Gazan. And isnt there an irony that I can have an Israeli passport but many who were born there and lived there for many generations can't?
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship."
Michael Meadowcroft
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/oct/15/letters
My favourite chant at demos - which I am sure you will all deplore - is "get those animals off those horses" when dealing with police cavalry (this comes out of my experience as a horse rider when I was young and liking and respecting horses, as well as my experience of being at demos when police cavalry decided to charge into people)
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-jews-expelled-from-labour-over-antisemitism
I strongly disagree with the statement that criticising Israel is by definition anti-semitic.
Edit, I might have guessed: "Commenting on a 1920’s Conservative member who was standing as a Liberal in a by-election, Churchill said it was the only instance of a rat swimming towards a sinking ship."
https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/speeches-about-winston-churchill/the-study-of-history-and-the-practice-of-politics/
Unfortunately, the establishment of Israel in 1948 definitely prejudiced the civil rights of many of the Arab Palestinians who fled or were driven out of their homes in the new country, and have never been allowed back by the Israeli government, despite UN GA resolution 194 calling for refugees to be allowed to return home "at the earliest possible date". Israel offered to accept a minority of them in 1949 in exchange for a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab world but this never happened.
Hence seven decades of bitterness, hatred, death, etc.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/cricketers/martin-mccague-16959
In the end, the sole dividing line in economics is wealth, and the crucial dividing line in politics is the power exerted by the rich over the poor. This was true in the third millennium BC, true at the time of the Romans, true during the Middle Ages and true now.
If you have upgraded your fabric to reduce your heating bills by 90-95% over a typical house to say £200 a year, then spending £1k on a complicated house control system, or £Xk on something to save energy when the payback period - due to other investment - is now 50 or 200 years.
It is not uncommon for people building passive (whether registered or not) houses to have no central heating, and just a couple of towel radiators or plug in fan heaters for the two or three weeks a year when it is cold. And if they do install underfloor heating it might just be a Willis Heater (ie traditional immersion heater) rather than a Heat Pump. This has been the case for at least a decade - Grand Designs gimmick-mongering is history.
But the higher quality fabric has saved the emissions anyway through lowering demand.
A house could feasibly be routinely heated by the body heat from about 3 dogs and 2 people, and normal activities like cooking and hot showers. So you just need a small boost available for when it freezes.
Overheating in such houses is a far larger issue than heating in the first place.
One of the issues has long been that investment is not reflected in market value, although the trend has been in that direction for a long time. One way to deal with that is to require houses to be upgraded before they are sold, or introduce differential rates of Stamp Duty or Council Tax by EPC Grade.
We are now at a stage where rental values (for example) will vary for say an EOC-B over an EPC-D. That has been the case for about 5-6 years now.
My strategy has been buy, invest and hold. It gives time for payback, gives a modestly higher rent and much lower tenant bills, keeps them happy and makes them stay - which avoids the most expensive thing in landlording, changing tenants.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4572735#Comment_4572735
My main concern, frankly, is for my Jewish friends and Jewish family members who feel more fearful living here because of the hatred, lack of empathy and, in some cases, glee expressed by so many at the atrocities perpetrated on people because they are Jewish or, in the case of Arabs, Muslims and others, killed because they were with or seeking to help Jewish people under attack.
The lack of human empathy, the rush to attack Israel for wanting to protect itself, the rush to blame the victims is indecent and unseemly and horrible and is, in many cases, motivated by anti-Jewish hatred. Only fools deny this.
Of course criticism of the Israeli government is not automatically or necessarily anti-Semitic. There are - as I have said ad nauseam - criticisms, serious ones, to be made of the Israeli government - ones made in good faith, ones of what they have done and of what they plan to do now. But again only a fool would deny that there are plenty of anti-semites who are not making criticisms in good faith and who use the "I'm only criticising the government" as a convenient cover for their anti-Semitism. A pity there are so many fools who fall for it.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
As to whether the working class are disproportionately non straight, non cis - it certainly isn't immediately obvious this is the case, though I'd be interested to see some stats.
If criticising Israel is automatically antisemetic, is criticising another religious state automatically anti-whatever.
For instance, criticising the United Kingdom is automatically anti-protestant?
If it is, is this a good thing? If it isn't, is that because Israel is the only Jewish state in the world?
If so, would it help if Paraguay declared itself to be a Jewish state? Would that allow criticism of Israel the state, or would it simply mean that you couldn't criticise Paraguay either?
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
Fleshes out a bit the context of the time imo.