This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
Except there is very clear rhetoric from politicians in Israel that make it clear that this is what is happening.
Rhetoric is concerning, but it’s not the same as action. There are hardliners in the Israeli government who have genocidal views, but they’re not in control. (There are many in Hamas with genocidal views, but they don’t control the West Bank and don’t represent all Gazans.) While being concerned about escalation, we also shouldn’t get carried away into demonising everyone on the “other side”.
This rhetoric is backed by action - Israel have told people to flee south and are bombing "safe" routes:
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
🔺NEW: Israel may not immediately send thousands of tanks and troops into Gaza after President Biden's visit tomorrow, as officials hint the effort to eradicate Hamas may be “something different” from a ground invasion.
What could it be, tho? Israel still has to extirpate Hamas. Somehow
Israel stays its hand, and hopes international pressure from Hamas's allies and funders stops Hamas. Allow things to cool down. Allow the kidnapped Israelis to be released.
And if Hamas continues, Israel lets loose. Although I daresay some on here would still blame Israel.
It's a small hope, but it's perhaps the best short-term thing that could happen.
If the Tories hold Mid Beds then the bitter recriminations will start between Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t expect it though to last into the general election as you’re not going to waste time and money fighting unwillable seats .
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Yes, the implication about Starmer and his bizarre auto-fellation is there but the Spectator is cleverly tip-toeing around the libel lawyers, I suspect
It’s quite a bombshell revelation
I'm sure no one ever accused the author of having a weird, some might even say oddly sexualised fascination with Italian fascism ?
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
I remember that was your position, but other posters and I also had a general wider discussion about if criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jewish people / anti-Semitism and why I still think your logic is faulty when you say "if Israel is definitionally a Jewish state, then to criticise Israel is to criticise Jews".
'To criticise Israel is to criticise Jews and the 25% of the population who are not Jews' doesn't have quite the same comfortingly simplistic ring to it.
But also all the Jewish people who do not live in Israel, have no desire to live in Israel, and are German or French or American and are not in any way represented by the state of Israel. To say Jewish person = potential Israeli or Israel = the country of all Jewish people is anti-Semitic.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
Again, you ignore what happened in Israel. Why? You really give the impression that, for you, Israeli casualties matter far less than Hamas ones.
Again, I ask you how you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
Yes there's some 'muscular' rhetoric of the sort I find a turn-off when it's about war - esp when people seem chilled about casualties or to assign a greater value to the life of non-combatants on one side over those on the other. I particularly dislike seeing spurious WW2 analogies rolled out to try and justify such sentiments.
At the risk of upsetting one or two folk Sky News says it has seen a confidential Conservative telephone polling of Mid Beds and Tamworth. Mid Beds says the Cons vote will halve to 28-33%. So they have lost between 27 and 32%. However only 5% is going to Labour. Where is the other 23-28% going? This may also help to explain the Lib Dems apparent cautious optimism But of course there is the Independent and Reform. Fascinating. Looks like 35% is the winning line.
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
Yes there's some 'muscular' rhetoric of the sort I find a turn-off when it's about war - esp when people seem chilled about casualties or to assign a greater value to the life of non-combatants on one side over those on the other. I particularly dislike seeing spurious WW2 analogies rolled out to try and justify such sentiments.
In some ways I find the hard eyed geopolitical pronouncers who claim to be able to pragmatically see the realpolitik of it all more wanky than the gung ho armchair warriors. They really put the anal into analysis.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
I'm sorry, but the "mass killing of civilians", in this instance completely indiscriminate and without any specific targets, is exactly what Hamas did, and therefore a "proportionate" response would absolutely involve the "mass killing of civilians."
I don't think anyone is calling for this, but I find dishonest language such as this completely abhorrent. You don't want a "proportionate" response at all, you want Israel to be held to a much higher standard in this conflict and to show far more restraint than Hamas. And even then you'll direct your criticism at Israel far more than you ever did against Hamas.
I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with holding Israel to a higher standard, but at least be honest about it, instead of hiding behind nonsensical language that literally means the opposite of what you're intending it to mean.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Yes, the implication about Starmer and his bizarre auto-fellation is there but the Spectator is cleverly tip-toeing around the libel lawyers, I suspect
It’s quite a bombshell revelation
I'm sure no one ever accused the author of having a weird, some might even say oddly sexualised fascination with Italian fascism ?
It's the uniforms. He likes the uniforms
(for the record I do not have a Star Trek uniform and have not worn one in adulthood)
🔺NEW: Israel may not immediately send thousands of tanks and troops into Gaza after President Biden's visit tomorrow, as officials hint the effort to eradicate Hamas may be “something different” from a ground invasion.
What could it be, tho? Israel still has to extirpate Hamas. Somehow
Honestly, I think it has more to do with the problems presented by asymmetric warfare in the post-Ukraine age.
Remember how everyone assumed Russia could just roll its tanks into Kyiv, and it would all be over in a matter of days? Even the US were offering to airlift Zelenskyy out, which is when he made his "we need ammunition, not a ride" speech.
While they are better funded, better trained, and clearly with much greater justification for the fight, Israel massing huge conventional forces on the border and "doing a Russia rolling into Kyiv" could end up in the same place. Half their tanks wiped out on day 1, by a few kids with cardboard drones and xbox controllers.
Israel need to think long and hard about how to actually eliminate Hamas, because I suspect "conventional warfare" won't get them much further than more and more steeped in their own blood, assuming Hamas are being trained and supplied by Iran.
You ignore it. He's just sore that Hamas kept Iran in the dark.
Hamas are Sunni extremists and opposed to Iran’s Shia fundamentalism. They are not natural allies, but they do share a common enemy. Iran always rushes to anti-Israeli rhetoric because it wants to distract its populace from their own unhappiness with the regime. Iran has had great success in extending its influence in recent years in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (with Hezbollah), but finds itself in a difficult proxy war with (Sunni) Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has been seeking to normalise relations with Israel, which gives Iran a further reason to portray itself as the great defender against Israel. So, the question is not about what rhetoric Iran spouts, it’s about what actions Iran takes.
If the Tories hold Mid Beds then the bitter recriminations will start between Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t expect it though to last into the general election as you’re not going to waste time and money fighting unwillable seats .
There was an absolutely stark-raving crackers post from @Barnesian on here which claimed that the Liberals have no chance of winning a by-election unless Labour concedes it, and therefore Labour should have conceded it (even though the Liberals were in THIRD place).
Barnesian then went on to say that, as that nasty big bully boy Labour has decided to fight the seat in which it is the current challenger, he hopes the Tories win. A better exposition of Yellow Peril entitlement one could barely craft oneself.
He was, quite rightly, put in his place by @NickPalmer, as I recall. But Labour themselves are far from blameless – they should have been quicker sending the troops into Mid Beds and made it crystal clear to the Liberals from Day Zero that they weren't going to concede this one and hand them a free pass (as they rightly did in Somerton).
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
I'm sorry, but the "mass killing of civilians", in this instance completely indiscriminate and without any specific targets, is exactly what Hamas did, and therefore a "proportionate" response would absolutely involve the "mass killing of civilians."
I don't think anyone is calling for this, but I find dishonest language such as this completely abhorrent. You don't want a "proportionate" response at all, you want Israel to be held to a much higher standard in this conflict and to show far more restraint than Hamas. And even then you'll direct your criticism at Israel far more than you ever did against Hamas.
I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with holding Israel to a higher standard, but at least be honest about it, instead of hiding behind nonsensical language that literally means the opposite of what you're intending it to mean.
It is proportionate to not respond to the mass killing of civilians with the mass killing of civilians. Our understanding of proportionality and justice is against collective punishment and in favour of the punishment of the people who actually did the thing. If someone kills your family it is not proportionate justice to kill theirs - their family did not do anything. Because one group of people (in this case Hamas) treat people (Israeli citizens) like things on their assault on their target (the state of Israel) does not mean that doing the same back (treating Palestinian citizens like things) is proportionate.
You ignore it. He's just sore that Hamas kept Iran in the dark.
Hamas are Sunni extremists and opposed to Iran’s Shia fundamentalism. They are not natural allies, but they do share a common enemy. Iran always rushes to anti-Israeli rhetoric because it wants to distract its populace from their own unhappiness with the regime. Iran has had great success in extending its influence in recent years in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (with Hezbollah), but finds itself in a difficult proxy war with (Sunni) Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has been seeking to normalise relations with Israel, which gives Iran a further reason to portray itself as the great defender against Israel. So, the question is not about what rhetoric Iran spouts, it’s about what actions Iran takes.
Another triumph for Bibi, kickstarting a rapprochement between Sunnis and Shias.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
I'm sorry, but the "mass killing of civilians", in this instance completely indiscriminate and without any specific targets, is exactly what Hamas did, and therefore a "proportionate" response would absolutely involve the "mass killing of civilians."
I don't think anyone is calling for this, but I find dishonest language such as this completely abhorrent. You don't want a "proportionate" response at all, you want Israel to be held to a much higher standard in this conflict and to show far more restraint than Hamas. And even then you'll direct your criticism at Israel far more than you ever did against Hamas.
I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with holding Israel to a higher standard, but at least be honest about it, instead of hiding behind nonsensical language that literally means the opposite of what you're intending it to mean.
Mass killings of civilians is never a proportionate response. The phrase does not mean “in proportion to what the enemy did to us”. It means what is proportionate to achieve legitimate war goals.
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
Yes there's some 'muscular' rhetoric of the sort I find a turn-off when it's about war - esp when people seem chilled about casualties or to assign a greater value to the life of non-combatants on one side over those on the other. I particularly dislike seeing spurious WW2 analogies rolled out to try and justify such sentiments.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Completely sympathise with your point. Hamas have had time to cease a continuing undeniable war crime over the hostages by releasing them and I think they should have done so, and that the Arab/Islamic world - and of course the people of Gaza - should already have put irresistible pressure on them in that direction.
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
Yes there's some 'muscular' rhetoric of the sort I find a turn-off when it's about war - esp when people seem chilled about casualties or to assign a greater value to the life of non-combatants on one side over those on the other. I particularly dislike seeing spurious WW2 analogies rolled out to try and justify such sentiments.
In some ways I find the hard eyed geopolitical pronouncers who claim to be able to pragmatically see the realpolitik of it all more wanky than the gung ho armchair warriors. They really put the anal into analysis.
It's a close run thing. But the geopols are just that teeny bit easier on the ear. Unless it's ... no we'll leave it there.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
Again, you ignore what happened in Israel. Why? You really give the impression that, for you, Israeli casualties matter far less than Hamas ones.
Again, I ask you how you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
I have not ignored what has happened in Israel, I have told you that it is unacceptable and I think the state of Israel has a reasonable right to target Hamas because of that; and also specifically said I do not expect no civilian casualties, but a strategy that minimises them rather than maximises them.
So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them - ask Egyptian and US intelligence that had warned them an attack was imminent, use your intelligence network, and target specific areas and specific people you can say are clearly part of the group responsible for the attack. Is it reasonable to bomb a neighbourhood to kill one soldier? No. If it is your position that it is too hard to find Hamas fighters therefore just killing everyone and "letting God sort it out" is the next best thing - I disagree.
🔺NEW: Israel may not immediately send thousands of tanks and troops into Gaza after President Biden's visit tomorrow, as officials hint the effort to eradicate Hamas may be “something different” from a ground invasion.
What could it be, tho? Israel still has to extirpate Hamas. Somehow
Israel stays its hand, and hopes international pressure from Hamas's allies and funders stops Hamas. Allow things to cool down. Allow the kidnapped Israelis to be released.
And if Hamas continues, Israel lets loose. Although I daresay some on here would still blame Israel.
It's a small hope, but it's perhaps the best short-term thing that could happen.
🙏
I wonder if the Americans have proposed much tougher action against Iran. To persuade Bibi to hold back
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
If Gaza has been made so inhospitable by Israel, how has it managed to have one of the fastest rates of population growth in the world, with the population going from below 450,000 in 1980 to over 2 million last year?
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
Yes I've seen some of what they're complaining about around the place. There's something missing from people who respond in that way. I've also been struck by how many good and impressive people there are on both sides. People not consumed with hatred despite everything. If only we could replace the current political leadership of Israel and Palestine with people like that there could be a peaceful long term settlement.
I suppose none of us can really speak with authority about how we’d react if our friends, family and country were the subjects of a vile, murderous assault, however I can at least see what the admirable path would be even if unsure that I could follow it. Nevertheless as we see on here plenty would be baws deep into vengeance mode untouched by scruple, doubt or nuance. If they can do that vicariously for a region that essentially has fckall to do with them, one can only imagine them with some skin in the game.
Yes there's some 'muscular' rhetoric of the sort I find a turn-off when it's about war - esp when people seem chilled about casualties or to assign a greater value to the life of non-combatants on one side over those on the other. I particularly dislike seeing spurious WW2 analogies rolled out to try and justify such sentiments.
In some ways I find the hard eyed geopolitical pronouncers who claim to be able to pragmatically see the realpolitik of it all more wanky than the gung ho armchair warriors. They really put the anal into analysis.
Yeah sounds great. Who would be a hard eyed geopolitical pronouncer, eh?
Still waiting if you have a mo' for your thoughts as per my previous post. I mean this is a discussion board, not a meta-analysis smartarse forum (although the latter is more comfortable for many).
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
If Gaza has been made so inhospitable by Israel, how has it managed to have one of the fastest rates of population growth in the world, with the population going from below 450,000 in 1980 to over 2 million last year?
80% unemployment. Need to do something to keep themselves busy.
At the risk of upsetting one or two folk Sky News says it has seen a confidential Conservative telephone polling of Mid Beds and Tamworth. Mid Beds says the Cons vote will halve to 28-33%. So they have lost between 27 and 32%. However only 5% is going to Labour. Where is the other 23-28% going? This may also help to explain the Lib Dems apparent cautious optimism But of course there is the Independent and Reform. Fascinating. Looks like 35% is the winning line.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
What would be the good and better way of releasing the hostages? It's undeniably a war crime, time has elapsed for release to occur, and releasing them is beyond doubt a good thing to do and in itself is entirely lawful.
If the Tories hold Mid Beds then the bitter recriminations will start between Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t expect it though to last into the general election as you’re not going to waste time and money fighting unwillable seats .
There was an absolutely stark-raving crackers post from @Barnesian on here which claimed that the Liberals have no chance of winning a by-election unless Labour concedes it, and therefore Labour should have conceded it (even though the Liberals were in THIRD place).
Barnesian then went on to say that, as that nasty big bully boy Labour has decided to fight the seat in which it is the current challenger, he hopes the Tories win. A better exposition of Yellow Peril entitlement one could barely craft oneself.
He was, quite rightly, put in his place by @NickPalmer, as I recall. But Labour themselves are far from blameless – they should have been quicker sending the troops into Mid Beds and made it crystal clear to the Liberals from Day Zero that they weren't going to concede this one and hand them a free pass (as they rightly did in Somerton).
Lots of encouragement for Libdems to come up and help in Mid Beds with regular emails and phone calls.
It looks like that I will be based in Flitwick on Thursday. This is the largest town in the constituency but is only around 10% of the electorate so the GOTV campaign will need to be carefully managed.
If more than 30% is a winning score then focused activity on Thursday will be required to maximise the diffential voting pattern.
I can see them cutting it in two and isolating the North. Maybe.
Agreed. I posted the other day that I could see Israel push into Gaza for a certain distance to create a cordon and then totally level a strip of the north of Gaza along the border which is left as an uninhabitable zone so the Israelis can see any movement (because nobody can live there anyone there is not likely a civilian) and reduce massively the chance of surprise attacks. I wouldn’t be overly surprised if the length of the border was also peppered with tech that picks up noise and movement from tunnelling.
It’s not ideal for the Palestinians who will lose their homes but it’s probably the best way to minimise civilians losses whilst reassuring Israelis that this can’t happen again.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
You want to make it impossible for Israel to react to this.
🔺NEW: Israel may not immediately send thousands of tanks and troops into Gaza after President Biden's visit tomorrow, as officials hint the effort to eradicate Hamas may be “something different” from a ground invasion.
What could it be, tho? Israel still has to extirpate Hamas. Somehow
Israel stays its hand, and hopes international pressure from Hamas's allies and funders stops Hamas. Allow things to cool down. Allow the kidnapped Israelis to be released.
And if Hamas continues, Israel lets loose. Although I daresay some on here would still blame Israel.
It's a small hope, but it's perhaps the best short-term thing that could happen.
🙏
I wonder if the Americans have proposed much tougher action against Iran. To persuade Bibi to hold back
Ultimately Iran is the enemy of both nations
Start with that blooming Iranian drone factory, that’s been supplying the Russians with arms for the past 18 months.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
What would be the good and better way of releasing the hostages? It's undeniably a war crime, time has elapsed for release to occur, and releasing them is beyond doubt a good thing to do and in itself is entirely lawful.
If you're asking what do I think is incumbent on Hamas, my position is of course they should release all hostages with no strings, make it clear where those hostages are and provide them safe passage out of Gaza. That would require them to telegraph that, publicly and/or through special channels.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
You want to make it impossible for Israel to react to this.
Why?
Are you saying that it is impossible for Israel to deal with the issue of Hamas without killing thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children, which is what is happening now?
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
Again, you ignore what happened in Israel. Why? You really give the impression that, for you, Israeli casualties matter far less than Hamas ones.
Again, I ask you how you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
I have not ignored what has happened in Israel, I have told you that it is unacceptable and I think the state of Israel has a reasonable right to target Hamas because of that; and also specifically said I do not expect no civilian casualties, but a strategy that minimises them rather than maximises them.
So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them - ask Egyptian and US intelligence that had warned them an attack was imminent, use your intelligence network, and target specific areas and specific people you can say are clearly part of the group responsible for the attack. Is it reasonable to bomb a neighbourhood to kill one soldier? No. If it is your position that it is too hard to find Hamas fighters therefore just killing everyone and "letting God sort it out" is the next best thing - I disagree.
How do you decide what 'minimal' civilian casualties are? We've already seen you on this thread directly accuse Israel of bombing a safe route, when it is unclear who did it.
"So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them"
How do you kill them - especially if you do not want any collateral damage. Is there some magic "Hamas finder" bullet that you're not telling us about?
I want peace. I don't want Israel destroyed. I don't want the West Bank or Gaza destroyed, either. *Your* viewpoint will directly lead to Israel being destroyed, by making it impossible for them to fight back.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
What would be the good and better way of releasing the hostages? It's undeniably a war crime, time has elapsed for release to occur, and releasing them is beyond doubt a good thing to do and in itself is entirely lawful.
If you're asking what do I think is incumbent on Hamas, my position is of course they should release all hostages with no strings, make it clear where those hostages are and provide them safe passage out of Gaza. That would require them to telegraph that, publicly and/or through special channels.
And the next step if that has not occurred after a lapse of time? (Time matters for a number of reasons, not least the hostages including children).
At the risk of upsetting one or two folk Sky News says it has seen a confidential Conservative telephone polling of Mid Beds and Tamworth. Mid Beds says the Cons vote will halve to 28-33%. So they have lost between 27 and 32%. However only 5% is going to Labour. Where is the other 23-28% going? This may also help to explain the Lib Dems apparent cautious optimism But of course there is the Independent and Reform. Fascinating. Looks like 35% is the winning line.
I'm surprised the Tories are now odds-on favourite in Mid Beds. The 'other 23-28%' is largely not going anywhere - sitting on their hands.
I suspect the anti-Labour vote will be sufficiently split CP/LD/Reform/MacKay to allow Labour to come through the middle. If so it will be that conservatives not voting that will have decided it.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
You want to make it impossible for Israel to react to this.
Why?
Are you saying that it is impossible for Israel to deal with the issue of Hamas without killing thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children, which is what is happening now?
I don't know.
Neither do you. You can believe in magic and pixies, but that does not make them a reality.
Is it possible for Hamas to deal with Israel without killing thousands? If so, why are they doing it?
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
If Gaza has been made so inhospitable by Israel, how has it managed to have one of the fastest rates of population growth in the world, with the population going from below 450,000 in 1980 to over 2 million last year?
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
You want to make it impossible for Israel to react to this.
Why?
Are you saying that it is impossible for Israel to deal with the issue of Hamas without killing thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children, which is what is happening now?
Yes, that's impossible. It would be difficult to do in an urban warfare environment anyway, but Hamas deliberately set up their operations among civilian infrastructure, which makes it impossible.
It wasn't possible for the US to destroy Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein's forces or ISIS without inflicting mass civilian casualties, and those were in large countries with lots of open spaces. How you expect Israel to manage in a single massively overpopulated urban area is beyond me.
a $10k NLAW is 100x more effective than a $10m tank
If that were the case then you could kill 100 MBTs with one NLAW.
Watch the CivDiv video on YouTube where the Belgian and American mercs are trying to kill a BMP-2 with an NLAW near Kharkov. That's the reality of infantry vs armour warfare. It's exhausting, stressful and dangerous. The infantry have to be some combination of astute, brave and lucky to prevail.
If the implications of the SMO have not been fully internalised by Hamas they certainly will have been by Iran and, by extension, Hezb and their other Shi'ite militia.
That's the reality of infantry vs armour warfare. It's exhausting, stressful and dangerous. The infantry have to be some combination of astute, brave and lucky to prevail.
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
Again, you ignore what happened in Israel. Why? You really give the impression that, for you, Israeli casualties matter far less than Hamas ones.
Again, I ask you how you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
I have not ignored what has happened in Israel, I have told you that it is unacceptable and I think the state of Israel has a reasonable right to target Hamas because of that; and also specifically said I do not expect no civilian casualties, but a strategy that minimises them rather than maximises them.
So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them - ask Egyptian and US intelligence that had warned them an attack was imminent, use your intelligence network, and target specific areas and specific people you can say are clearly part of the group responsible for the attack. Is it reasonable to bomb a neighbourhood to kill one soldier? No. If it is your position that it is too hard to find Hamas fighters therefore just killing everyone and "letting God sort it out" is the next best thing - I disagree.
How do you decide what 'minimal' civilian casualties are? We've already seen you on this thread directly accuse Israel of bombing a safe route, when it is unclear who did it.
"So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them"
How do you kill them - especially if you do not want any collateral damage. Is there some magic "Hamas finder" bullet that you're not telling us about?
I want peace. I don't want Israel destroyed. I don't want the West Bank or Gaza destroyed, either. *Your* viewpoint will directly lead to Israel being destroyed, by making it impossible for them to fight back.
Again, I have to ask why.
If you refuse to a) take anything I say with an ounce of good faith and b) to actually explain your position when I ask questions of you - I have no interest in holding a one sided interrogation.
I have made my position quite clear - that the mass bombing of civilians is not a justifiable military response.
Your position seems to be if that Israel is allowed to kill as many Palestinians as it can in the name of self defence and eliminating Hamas. You seem to believe that any suggestion to not do an immediate knee jerk massacre of Palestinians is itself a defence of the unacceptable killing of Israeli innocents. If that is so, the only acceptable solution for you is to say that the killing of all Palestinians and, indeed, letting God sort them out is, somehow, acceptable if that were the course taken by Israel. I simply disagree.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Yes, the implication about Starmer and his bizarre auto-fellation is there but the Spectator is cleverly tip-toeing around the libel lawyers, I suspect
It’s quite a bombshell revelation
I'm sure no one ever accused the author of having a weird, some might even say oddly sexualised fascination with Italian fascism ?
It's the uniforms. He likes the uniforms
(for the record I do not have a Star Trek uniform and have not worn one in adulthood)
I'm sure that somewhere in the opponents to James T Kirk there must be one set of enemies modelled on Mussolini and Friends.
"Mussolini on a lamp post at the corner of the street ..."
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
Again, you ignore what happened in Israel. Why? You really give the impression that, for you, Israeli casualties matter far less than Hamas ones.
Again, I ask you how you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
I have not ignored what has happened in Israel, I have told you that it is unacceptable and I think the state of Israel has a reasonable right to target Hamas because of that; and also specifically said I do not expect no civilian casualties, but a strategy that minimises them rather than maximises them.
So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them - ask Egyptian and US intelligence that had warned them an attack was imminent, use your intelligence network, and target specific areas and specific people you can say are clearly part of the group responsible for the attack. Is it reasonable to bomb a neighbourhood to kill one soldier? No. If it is your position that it is too hard to find Hamas fighters therefore just killing everyone and "letting God sort it out" is the next best thing - I disagree.
How do you decide what 'minimal' civilian casualties are? We've already seen you on this thread directly accuse Israel of bombing a safe route, when it is unclear who did it.
"So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them"
How do you kill them - especially if you do not want any collateral damage. Is there some magic "Hamas finder" bullet that you're not telling us about?
I want peace. I don't want Israel destroyed. I don't want the West Bank or Gaza destroyed, either. *Your* viewpoint will directly lead to Israel being destroyed, by making it impossible for them to fight back.
Again, I have to ask why.
If you refuse to a) take anything I say with an ounce of good faith and b) to actually explain your position when I ask questions of you - I have no interest in holding a one sided interrogation.
I have made my position quite clear - that the mass bombing of civilians is not a justifiable military response.
Your position seems to be if that Israel is allowed to kill as many Palestinians as it can in the name of self defence and eliminating Hamas. You seem to believe that any suggestion to not do an immediate knee jerk massacre of Palestinians is itself a defence of the unacceptable killing of Israeli innocents. If that is so, the only acceptable solution for you is to say that the killing of all Palestinians and, indeed, letting God sort them out is, somehow, acceptable if that were the course taken by Israel. I simply disagree.
The difference is that women and children were the delibarate targets of the Hamas terrorists.
When Israel attacks Hamas, the targets will be military and state infrastructure, and any civilian casualties will be considered incidental and unfortunate.
a $10k NLAW is 100x more effective than a $10m tank
If that were the case then you could kill 100 MBTs with one NLAW.
Watch the CivDiv video on YouTube where the Belgian and American mercs are trying to kill a BMP-2 with an NLAW near Kharkov. That's the reality of infantry vs armour warfare. It's exhausting, stressful and dangerous. The infantry have to be some combination of astute, brave and lucky to prevail.
If the implications of the SMO have not been fully internalised by Hamas they certainly will have been by Iran and, by extension, Hezb and their other Shi'ite militia.
Interesting video, thanks for the tip. Definitely not the one shot, one kill vids you see doing the rounds on twitter.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
What would be the good and better way of releasing the hostages? It's undeniably a war crime, time has elapsed for release to occur, and releasing them is beyond doubt a good thing to do and in itself is entirely lawful.
If you're asking what do I think is incumbent on Hamas, my position is of course they should release all hostages with no strings, make it clear where those hostages are and provide them safe passage out of Gaza. That would require them to telegraph that, publicly and/or through special channels.
And the next step if that has not occurred after a lapse of time? (Time matters for a number of reasons, not least the hostages including children).
From the position of Israel? The extraction of those hostages in such a way that minimises civilian casualties. At no point does that include a mass bombing campaign of urban areas, the mass starving of civilians, the mass arming of Israeli civilians alongside messages from the government to kill any Palestinian that may or may not be Hamas, etc etc.
The other day I quoted A Man For All Seasons, and I will do so again:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
This is where his argument falls down, as a matter of law:
"Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,”
That is not what is happening.
He is adopting a definition of genocide that is so loose, that, for example, the Allied Campaigns against Germany and Japan in WWII would be deemed genocide.
He should be very thankful that he’s from a country that values freedom of speech. Imagine what might have happened to Palestinian scholars who described the events of last Saturday in the same terms.
The whole "things sure do look flammable around here, good thing there ain't no open flame" reaction of many people when responding to legitimate criticism of Israel is really weird. I've noticed it the most when queer people, like myself, suggest that mass murder is bad by people going "well Hamas would kill you for loving men". And? As if Israeli carpet bombing isn't actually more deadly to queer Gazans than Hamas?
I see you mention Israel 'carpet bombing' Gaza, but not the continued rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel? do you think those rockets from Gaza carry teddy bears and flowers for Israelis?
It's a mess. I'd like to see a deescalation agreement: Hamas release all prisoners taken from Israel, plus bodies of the dead, and stop rocket attacks. In return, Israel does not bomb and invade. That, for a start, might take us back to a month ago.
Edit: although Hezbollah and Iran are complicating matters as well...
One group is a terrorist organisation, one is supposedly the only modern democracy in the Middle East. If the idea is that the state of Israel's moral culpability is equivalent to that of Hamas and therefore because Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so, that Israel can just kill as many Palestinians as they want - I disagree.
Hamas is more than a 'terrorist organisation'. It is the government of Gaza.
The issue - which seems to fly merrily over your head - is that you think that as "Hamas did a terrorist attack, and keeps doing so", that Israel cannot respond.
In other words, you want Hamas to be able to attack Israel at will, but deplore any attempt by Israel to fight back.
No - Israel has to react with proportion. The mass killing of civilians is not proportional. Find Hamas soldiers, take them down, kill or arrest them. That is what the supposed "rules based order" is about - that if you want to claim to be in the civilised world their is an incumbent responsibility to react in a way that is proportional, even in the face of terrorism. I do reserve this criticism for Israel - it is the same distain I hold for the US in their actions post 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the UK in our government's support in it. Topping likes to take examples from history, like Dresden or Hiroshima - things I also am willing to say should fall into the war crimes territory.
And Hamas is barely a government - it was elected 2006 with a plurality vote beating the Fatah party by like 3%. In a country where the average age is 18... how in any way can you start making the argument that Hamas is just synonymous with Gazan. How many dead innocent is acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Palestinian in your mind?
I accept the travesty of what Hamas did, and think it is morally outrageous and unjustified, and can also say that the killing of thousands of Palestinians, many of them children, is also morally outrageous and unjustified.
"The mass killing of civilians is not proportional."
And what was what Hamas did the weekend before last, except for the mass killings of civilians?
How many dead Israelis are acceptable to you? Or is there no such thing as an innocent Israeli in your mind?
So your idea of justice is "if they kill innocents, we are allowed to kill innocents"?
I have made it clear that the killing of Israeli citizens is unacceptable - but then target Hamas, not Palestinians indiscriminately. Again, Israel is supposedly a modern functioning democratic state; Hamas, and Gaza, is not. If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it" then who should give a shit about anything?
You don't make that clear at all; in fact you seem to want Israel to just sit back and be beaten to a pulp. Because you are putting massive hurdles in front of any Israeli reaction, whilst you seem happy for Hamas to do what they want to Israel.
It's perfectly fine for you, in your nice safe seat, in a nice safe country, to opine that Israel should only target Hamas. How do they do that? How do you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
"If the position is "it's only war crimes when our enemies do it""
To be clear, that's not my position.
I accept that you cannot have war with literally 0 civilian casualties - but you should be making every effort to minimise them. Not every Palestinian is a member of Hamas. What is the strategic benefit of starving an entire region when fighting a terrorist organisation? What is the strategic benefit of taking away civilian access to water? To bombing hospitals? To targeting civilian apartment blocks?
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
Again, you ignore what happened in Israel. Why? You really give the impression that, for you, Israeli casualties matter far less than Hamas ones.
Again, I ask you how you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
I have not ignored what has happened in Israel, I have told you that it is unacceptable and I think the state of Israel has a reasonable right to target Hamas because of that; and also specifically said I do not expect no civilian casualties, but a strategy that minimises them rather than maximises them.
So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them - ask Egyptian and US intelligence that had warned them an attack was imminent, use your intelligence network, and target specific areas and specific people you can say are clearly part of the group responsible for the attack. Is it reasonable to bomb a neighbourhood to kill one soldier? No. If it is your position that it is too hard to find Hamas fighters therefore just killing everyone and "letting God sort it out" is the next best thing - I disagree.
How do you decide what 'minimal' civilian casualties are? We've already seen you on this thread directly accuse Israel of bombing a safe route, when it is unclear who did it.
"So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them"
How do you kill them - especially if you do not want any collateral damage. Is there some magic "Hamas finder" bullet that you're not telling us about?
I want peace. I don't want Israel destroyed. I don't want the West Bank or Gaza destroyed, either. *Your* viewpoint will directly lead to Israel being destroyed, by making it impossible for them to fight back.
Again, I have to ask why.
If you refuse to a) take anything I say with an ounce of good faith and b) to actually explain your position when I ask questions of you - I have no interest in holding a one sided interrogation.
I have made my position quite clear - that the mass bombing of civilians is not a justifiable military response.
Your position seems to be if that Israel is allowed to kill as many Palestinians as it can in the name of self defence and eliminating Hamas. You seem to believe that any suggestion to not do an immediate knee jerk massacre of Palestinians is itself a defence of the unacceptable killing of Israeli innocents. If that is so, the only acceptable solution for you is to say that the killing of all Palestinians and, indeed, letting God sort them out is, somehow, acceptable if that were the course taken by Israel. I simply disagree.
a) I don't *refuse* to take anything you say with an ounce of good faith; it is just that the majority of what you write goes directly against what you claim to say.
b) Please repeat the questions, and I shall try to answer them.
"Your position seems to be if that Israel is allowed to kill as many Palestinians as it can in the name of self defence and eliminating Hamas. "
No, that's not my position. My position is actually slightly woolly, as I have little idea what the right, or moral, answer to this mess is. But I do know that your position is utterly untenable and, in fact, immoral.
"If that is so, the only acceptable solution for you is to say that the killing of all Palestinians and, indeed, letting God sort them out is, somehow, acceptable if that were the course taken by Israel. I simply disagree. "
Again, that's not my position. I've given one or two reasonably good ways forward to this before, including one on this very thread. But I do wonder why your position seems to leave Israel unable to do anything against a state government that wants to wipe it off the map.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Yes, the implication about Starmer and his bizarre auto-fellation is there but the Spectator is cleverly tip-toeing around the libel lawyers, I suspect
It’s quite a bombshell revelation
I'm sure no one ever accused the author of having a weird, some might even say oddly sexualised fascination with Italian fascism ?
It's the uniforms. He likes the uniforms
(for the record I do not have a Star Trek uniform and have not worn one in adulthood)
I'm sure that somewhere in the opponents to James T Kirk there must be one set of enemies modelled on Mussolini and Friends.
"Mussolini on a lamp post at the corner of the street ..."
The best thing about Italian Fascism was the architecture. It produced some genuinely beautiful buildings
This is my favourite. Indeed it's one of my favourite buildings of the entire twentieth century:
If the Tories hold Mid Beds then the bitter recriminations will start between Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t expect it though to last into the general election as you’re not going to waste time and money fighting unwillable seats .
There was an absolutely stark-raving crackers post from @Barnesian on here which claimed that the Liberals have no chance of winning a by-election unless Labour concedes it, and therefore Labour should have conceded it (even though the Liberals were in THIRD place).
Barnesian then went on to say that, as that nasty big bully boy Labour has decided to fight the seat in which it is the current challenger, he hopes the Tories win. A better exposition of Yellow Peril entitlement one could barely craft oneself.
He was, quite rightly, put in his place by @NickPalmer, as I recall. But Labour themselves are far from blameless – they should have been quicker sending the troops into Mid Beds and made it crystal clear to the Liberals from Day Zero that they weren't going to concede this one and hand them a free pass (as they rightly did in Somerton).
Lots of encouragement for Libdems to come up and help in Mid Beds with regular emails and phone calls.
It looks like that I will be based in Flitwick on Thursday. This is the largest town in the constituency but is only around 10% of the electorate so the GOTV campaign will need to be carefully managed.
If more than 30% is a winning score then focused activity on Thursday will be required to maximise the diffential voting pattern.
IMO based on the four canvass rounds that I've been on, the LibDems are behind by a large margin, and their effort will literally help the Tories beat Labour, as Barnesian says he'd prefer. I do expect that to have negative effects on tactical voting at the GE (I know three people personally in Godalming, a LibDem target, who voted tactically for them last time and won't do so again in protest at their "greediness"). So it's doubly beneficial for the Tories - both in holding the seat and weakening tactical efforts in the future.
I do think it's difficult for the LibDems to simply sit out two by-elections (this is also why appealing to the Greens to stay out rarely works), so I'm not as cheesed off as some, but I do think that the effort they're making has turned out to be against everyone's interest except the Tories, and perhaps some LibDems with the wider interest in mind will give polling day a miss.
I'll be helping Labour in Flitwick too on Thursday, Verulamius, so perhaps our paths will cross. I'll look out for anyone who looks like a centurion.
At the risk of upsetting one or two folk Sky News says it has seen a confidential Conservative telephone polling of Mid Beds and Tamworth. Mid Beds says the Cons vote will halve to 28-33%. So they have lost between 27 and 32%. However only 5% is going to Labour. Where is the other 23-28% going? This may also help to explain the Lib Dems apparent cautious optimism But of course there is the Independent and Reform. Fascinating. Looks like 35% is the winning line.
It's not totally obvious that the different percentages are all of the same base.
That memo is pretty obviously planted rather than leaked, in my view.
Clues are that it claims candidates and PM are personally going down well with voters (& blame lies with Dorries/Pincher), that the vast majority of the problem is Tories staying at home rather than switching, and projection of Tory vote cut in half (which is possible but would be substantially worse than Selby). This feels very much like expectation management and getting your excuses in early.
If it is a plant, it's somewhat positive news for the Lib Dems in Bedfordshire, as it talks them down and Labour up so seems intended to supress the Lib Dem vote rather than Labour.
a $10k NLAW is 100x more effective than a $10m tank
If that were the case then you could kill 100 MBTs with one NLAW.
Watch the CivDiv video on YouTube where the Belgian and American mercs are trying to kill a BMP-2 with an NLAW near Kharkov. That's the reality of infantry vs armour warfare. It's exhausting, stressful and dangerous. The infantry have to be some combination of astute, brave and lucky to prevail.
If the implications of the SMO have not been fully internalised by Hamas they certainly will have been by Iran and, by extension, Hezb and their other Shi'ite militia.
Interesting video, thanks for the tip. Definitely not the one shot, one kill vids you see doing the rounds on twitter.
From my impressions, vast amounts of ordnance, from bullets to missiles, are expended to just get one kill - whether that is of a person, building or machine. Smart munitions have helped that somewhat, but only a bit.
I remember that was your position, but other posters and I also had a general wider discussion about if criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jewish people / anti-Semitism and why I still think your logic is faulty when you say "if Israel is definitionally a Jewish state, then to criticise Israel is to criticise Jews".
'To criticise Israel is to criticise Jews and the 25% of the population who are not Jews' doesn't have quite the same comfortingly simplistic ring to it.
But also all the Jewish people who do not live in Israel, have no desire to live in Israel, and are German or French or American and are not in any way represented by the state of Israel. To say Jewish person = potential Israeli or Israel = the country of all Jewish people is anti-Semitic.
Another interesting little Trump titbit concerning the Aberdeenshire golf resort, from the New York Civil Fraud Trial.
In 2008 he got Outline Planning Permission for various developments (remember the controversy), including just uhder 1500 lodges, houses etc.
If his Statement of Financial Condition 2014-2018 he included 1000 extra Planning Permissions in his documents. That is a value inflation of an extra £50m -> £100m (my very -ish number).
Since PPs normally expire after 3 years, there is also a slightly complex question of whether the ones he had had were still extant.
At the risk of upsetting one or two folk Sky News says it has seen a confidential Conservative telephone polling of Mid Beds and Tamworth. Mid Beds says the Cons vote will halve to 28-33%. So they have lost between 27 and 32%. However only 5% is going to Labour. Where is the other 23-28% going? This may also help to explain the Lib Dems apparent cautious optimism But of course there is the Independent and Reform. Fascinating. Looks like 35% is the winning line.
At the risk of upsetting one or two folk Sky News says it has seen a confidential Conservative telephone polling of Mid Beds and Tamworth. Mid Beds says the Cons vote will halve to 28-33%. So they have lost between 27 and 32%. However only 5% is going to Labour. Where is the other 23-28% going? This may also help to explain the Lib Dems apparent cautious optimism But of course there is the Independent and Reform. Fascinating. Looks like 35% is the winning line.
It's not totally obvious that the different percentages are all of the same base.
The memo does say directly that the "lost" Tories are overwhelmingly just sitting it out, with "very few direct switchers to opposition parties". That corresponds broadly to my impression although I met more Con-Lab switchers than 1 in 20. I still think Labour have a decent shot at it, if the LibDem effort doesn't undermine the tactical voting effort without bringing themselves within reach.
More strategically, both Opposition parties need to keep in mind that the Tory vote is basically just staying at home. That might not still hold in a year's time.
If the Tories hold Mid Beds then the bitter recriminations will start between Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t expect it though to last into the general election as you’re not going to waste time and money fighting unwillable seats .
There was an absolutely stark-raving crackers post from @Barnesian on here which claimed that the Liberals have no chance of winning a by-election unless Labour concedes it, and therefore Labour should have conceded it (even though the Liberals were in THIRD place).
Barnesian then went on to say that, as that nasty big bully boy Labour has decided to fight the seat in which it is the current challenger, he hopes the Tories win. A better exposition of Yellow Peril entitlement one could barely craft oneself.
He was, quite rightly, put in his place by @NickPalmer, as I recall. But Labour themselves are far from blameless – they should have been quicker sending the troops into Mid Beds and made it crystal clear to the Liberals from Day Zero that they weren't going to concede this one and hand them a free pass (as they rightly did in Somerton).
Lots of encouragement for Libdems to come up and help in Mid Beds with regular emails and phone calls.
It looks like that I will be based in Flitwick on Thursday. This is the largest town in the constituency but is only around 10% of the electorate so the GOTV campaign will need to be carefully managed.
If more than 30% is a winning score then focused activity on Thursday will be required to maximise the diffential voting pattern.
IMO based on the four canvass rounds that I've been on, the LibDems are behind by a large margin, and their effort will literally help the Tories beat Labour, as Barnesian says he'd prefer. I do expect that to have negative effects on tactical voting at the GE (I know three people personally in Godalming, a LibDem target, who voted tactically for them last time and won't do so again in protest at their "greediness"). So it's doubly beneficial for the Tories - both in holding the seat and weakening tactical efforts in the future.
I do think it's difficult for the LibDems to simply sit out two by-elections (this is also why appealing to the Greens to stay out rarely works), so I'm not as cheesed off as some, but I do think that the effort they're making has turned out to be against everyone's interest except the Tories, and perhaps some LibDems with the wider interest in mind will give polling day a miss.
I'll be helping Labour in Flitwick too on Thursday, Verulamius, so perhaps our paths will cross. I'll look out for anyone who looks like a centurion.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
What would be the good and better way of releasing the hostages? It's undeniably a war crime, time has elapsed for release to occur, and releasing them is beyond doubt a good thing to do and in itself is entirely lawful.
If you're asking what do I think is incumbent on Hamas, my position is of course they should release all hostages with no strings, make it clear where those hostages are and provide them safe passage out of Gaza. That would require them to telegraph that, publicly and/or through special channels.
And the next step if that has not occurred after a lapse of time? (Time matters for a number of reasons, not least the hostages including children).
From the position of Israel? The extraction of those hostages in such a way that minimises civilian casualties. At no point does that include a mass bombing campaign of urban areas, the mass starving of civilians, the mass arming of Israeli civilians alongside messages from the government to kill any Palestinian that may or may not be Hamas, etc etc.
The other day I quoted A Man For All Seasons, and I will do so again:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
What, exactly, is your military experience in, say, recovering hostages, fighting terrorists, fighting any sort of war etc.,?
Just so that we can assess your comments on what Israel should and should not do in the light of your expertise in such matters?
For myself, I find the suggestion that Israel should ask Egypt for the addresses of Hamas commanders so that they can be arrested at their homes grimly amusing. But a tad La La Landish. But what do I know - I am not a military person. Perhaps you are.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
What would be the good and better way of releasing the hostages? It's undeniably a war crime, time has elapsed for release to occur, and releasing them is beyond doubt a good thing to do and in itself is entirely lawful.
If you're asking what do I think is incumbent on Hamas, my position is of course they should release all hostages with no strings, make it clear where those hostages are and provide them safe passage out of Gaza. That would require them to telegraph that, publicly and/or through special channels.
And the next step if that has not occurred after a lapse of time? (Time matters for a number of reasons, not least the hostages including children).
From the position of Israel? The extraction of those hostages in such a way that minimises civilian casualties. At no point does that include a mass bombing campaign of urban areas, the mass starving of civilians, the mass arming of Israeli civilians alongside messages from the government to kill any Palestinian that may or may not be Hamas, etc etc.
The other day I quoted A Man For All Seasons, and I will do so again:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
What, exactly, is your military experience in, say, recovering hostages, fighting terrorists, fighting any sort of war etc.,?
Just so that we can assess your comments on what Israel should and should not do in the light of your expertise in such matters?
For myself, I find the suggestion that Israel should ask Egypt for the addresses of Hamas commanders so that they can be arrested at their homes grimly amusing. But a tad La La Landish. But what do I know - I am not a military person. Perhaps you are.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the IDF aren't on the phone, right now, to @148grss to find out how to completely deal with Hamas while causing just one casualty
At the risk of upsetting one or two folk Sky News says it has seen a confidential Conservative telephone polling of Mid Beds and Tamworth. Mid Beds says the Cons vote will halve to 28-33%. So they have lost between 27 and 32%. However only 5% is going to Labour. Where is the other 23-28% going? This may also help to explain the Lib Dems apparent cautious optimism But of course there is the Independent and Reform. Fascinating. Looks like 35% is the winning line.
On another note, a local FB group has just had reports of a XL Bully loose near the end of the path that most of the secondary and primary school kids take - and which I will be taking in less than an hour. It is apparently acting 'aggressively'.
I wouldn't know a XL Bully if I saw one (compared to, say, a Bulldog), and goodness knows if acting aggressively just meant that it was sitting on the grass licking its own privates.
But it is another indication that the issue has some cut-through.
I've read an awful lot on here, and elsewhere, about Mid-Bedfordshire, but hardly anything about Tamworth. Is that just because Tamworth is so dire that nobody goes there? I see that Labour are the bookies' clear favourites there, but I'm not sure why. Is that just because the LDs aren't in the game?
On the same note, I receive daily emails from Labour asking for help in Mid-Beds, but again, nothing on Tamworth. So, either Labour thinks it's in the bag, or they've given up. Does anybody know what's going on in Tamworth, and why there's such an apparent lack of interest?
Yes, I'm trying ascertain whether Tories are VALUE there, at a good notch over 3.
It may be geographical. I get daily appeals on mid-Beds too, but I live in Surrey so Tamworth is further away. The Liverpool activists who I talked to at the conference said they were spending all their time in Tamworth.
At the Tory conference, it was clear that Tory MPs had been asked to help in both, though I only saw two Tory canvassers during the two days I was there.
Would anyone argue that eliminating Hamas would not be a good outcome (were it possible)?
Hamas's mum?
All those people in London and other cities this last weekend describing their actions as "beautiful" and "inspirational", presumably.
The sad thing is that evil has a lot of supporters. This should not come as a surprise to us. But it does. So we have to keep relearning the lessons - and in the process a lot of blood is shed.
Two quotes come to mind at a time like this -
1. Albert Camus - "Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."
2. "Totalitarianism of the Left, much like an earlier totalitarianism of the Right, was about violence and power and control, and it appealed because of these features, not in spite of them." - Tony Judt
I've read an awful lot on here, and elsewhere, about Mid-Bedfordshire, but hardly anything about Tamworth. Is that just because Tamworth is so dire that nobody goes there? I see that Labour are the bookies' clear favourites there, but I'm not sure why. Is that just because the LDs aren't in the game?
On the same note, I receive daily emails from Labour asking for help in Mid-Beds, but again, nothing on Tamworth. So, either Labour thinks it's in the bag, or they've given up. Does anybody know what's going on in Tamworth, and why there's such an apparent lack of interest?
Yes, I'm trying ascertain whether Tories are VALUE there, at a good notch over 3.
It may be geographical. I get daily appeals on mid-Beds too, but I live in Surrey so Tamworth is further away. The Liverpool activists who I talked to at the conference said they were spending all their time in Tamworth.
At the Tory conference, it was clear that Tory MPs had been asked to help in both, though I only saw two Tory canvassers during the two days I was there.
Did you get a feel for how Festus Akinbusoye is regarded? I understand he's well known to the electorate already.
We must factor in this. The Spectator is claiming that “no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself”
Is that true? Could affect Mid Bedfordshire, or even Tamworth
The exact phrase "no one has ever accused Sir Keir Starmer of having two ribs removed so he can more easily fellate himself" does not exist in the article, although it is a summary of sentences that do.
So the entirely accurate answer to that question is "no, he didn't"
Yes, the implication about Starmer and his bizarre auto-fellation is there but the Spectator is cleverly tip-toeing around the libel lawyers, I suspect
It’s quite a bombshell revelation
I'm sure no one ever accused the author of having a weird, some might even say oddly sexualised fascination with Italian fascism ?
It's the uniforms. He likes the uniforms
(for the record I do not have a Star Trek uniform and have not worn one in adulthood)
I'm sure that somewhere in the opponents to James T Kirk there must be one set of enemies modelled on Mussolini and Friends.
"Mussolini on a lamp post at the corner of the street ..."
This EV fire nonsense is still rumbling on. I did a video on it last Friday which continues to attract crazies to post paranoid comments. Great! They all get served pre-roll adverts which boosts my revenue...
If the Tories hold Mid Beds then the bitter recriminations will start between Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t expect it though to last into the general election as you’re not going to waste time and money fighting unwillable seats .
There was an absolutely stark-raving crackers post from @Barnesian on here which claimed that the Liberals have no chance of winning a by-election unless Labour concedes it, and therefore Labour should have conceded it (even though the Liberals were in THIRD place).
Barnesian then went on to say that, as that nasty big bully boy Labour has decided to fight the seat in which it is the current challenger, he hopes the Tories win. A better exposition of Yellow Peril entitlement one could barely craft oneself.
He was, quite rightly, put in his place by @NickPalmer, as I recall. But Labour themselves are far from blameless – they should have been quicker sending the troops into Mid Beds and made it crystal clear to the Liberals from Day Zero that they weren't going to concede this one and hand them a free pass (as they rightly did in Somerton).
Lots of encouragement for Libdems to come up and help in Mid Beds with regular emails and phone calls.
It looks like that I will be based in Flitwick on Thursday. This is the largest town in the constituency but is only around 10% of the electorate so the GOTV campaign will need to be carefully managed.
If more than 30% is a winning score then focused activity on Thursday will be required to maximise the diffential voting pattern.
IMO based on the four canvass rounds that I've been on, the LibDems are behind by a large margin, and their effort will literally help the Tories beat Labour, as Barnesian says he'd prefer. I do expect that to have negative effects on tactical voting at the GE (I know three people personally in Godalming, a LibDem target, who voted tactically for them last time and won't do so again in protest at their "greediness"). So it's doubly beneficial for the Tories - both in holding the seat and weakening tactical efforts in the future.
I do think it's difficult for the LibDems to simply sit out two by-elections (this is also why appealing to the Greens to stay out rarely works), so I'm not as cheesed off as some, but I do think that the effort they're making has turned out to be against everyone's interest except the Tories, and perhaps some LibDems with the wider interest in mind will give polling day a miss.
I'll be helping Labour in Flitwick too on Thursday, Verulamius, so perhaps our paths will cross. I'll look out for anyone who looks like a centurion.
You're a Labour ex MP, so it's not surprising that you want Labour to win this by election. If the Libdems didn't stand you would probably do it. It's also true that if Labour didn't stand the Libdems would probably win it. Letting the Tories hold on, if they do, would be an unfortunate result of our electoral system. If only there was a way where all parties could fight for what they believe in and the electorate wasn't forced to make decisions about who was the main challenger.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
What would be the good and better way of releasing the hostages? It's undeniably a war crime, time has elapsed for release to occur, and releasing them is beyond doubt a good thing to do and in itself is entirely lawful.
If you're asking what do I think is incumbent on Hamas, my position is of course they should release all hostages with no strings, make it clear where those hostages are and provide them safe passage out of Gaza. That would require them to telegraph that, publicly and/or through special channels.
And the next step if that has not occurred after a lapse of time? (Time matters for a number of reasons, not least the hostages including children).
From the position of Israel? The extraction of those hostages in such a way that minimises civilian casualties. At no point does that include a mass bombing campaign of urban areas, the mass starving of civilians, the mass arming of Israeli civilians alongside messages from the government to kill any Palestinian that may or may not be Hamas, etc etc.
The other day I quoted A Man For All Seasons, and I will do so again:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
What, exactly, is your military experience in, say, recovering hostages, fighting terrorists, fighting any sort of war etc.,?
Just so that we can assess your comments on what Israel should and should not do in the light of your expertise in such matters?
For myself, I find the suggestion that Israel should ask Egypt for the addresses of Hamas commanders so that they can be arrested at their homes grimly amusing. But a tad La La Landish. But what do I know - I am not a military person. Perhaps you are.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the IDF aren't on the phone, right now, to @148grss to find out how to completely deal with Hamas while causing just one casualty
And we have quite a few 'experts' on here of the opposite persuasion - applying their knowledge of modern urban warfare and concluding that Israel cannot possibly pop one on Hamas without accidentally obliterating a couple of hundred thousand (ish) Palestinian children.
Be interesting to see how this affects the next local elections.
Very interesting and not one I can easily call. The Greens are snapping at Labour's heels in the inner wards. There's the possibility for anti-LTN independents to stand against Labour but historically they've not done well. The LibDems are mostly in North Oxford so probably less affected, though the jams on St Clements might put off some of their Headington voters. Labour seems very split on the issue.
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
What would be the good and better way of releasing the hostages? It's undeniably a war crime, time has elapsed for release to occur, and releasing them is beyond doubt a good thing to do and in itself is entirely lawful.
If you're asking what do I think is incumbent on Hamas, my position is of course they should release all hostages with no strings, make it clear where those hostages are and provide them safe passage out of Gaza. That would require them to telegraph that, publicly and/or through special channels.
And the next step if that has not occurred after a lapse of time? (Time matters for a number of reasons, not least the hostages including children).
From the position of Israel? The extraction of those hostages in such a way that minimises civilian casualties. At no point does that include a mass bombing campaign of urban areas, the mass starving of civilians, the mass arming of Israeli civilians alongside messages from the government to kill any Palestinian that may or may not be Hamas, etc etc.
The other day I quoted A Man For All Seasons, and I will do so again:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
What, exactly, is your military experience in, say, recovering hostages, fighting terrorists, fighting any sort of war etc.,?
Just so that we can assess your comments on what Israel should and should not do in the light of your expertise in such matters?
For myself, I find the suggestion that Israel should ask Egypt for the addresses of Hamas commanders so that they can be arrested at their homes grimly amusing. But a tad La La Landish. But what do I know - I am not a military person. Perhaps you are.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the IDF aren't on the phone, right now, to @148grss to find out how to completely deal with Hamas while causing just one casualty
And we have quite a few 'experts' on here of the opposite persuasion - applying their knowledge of modern urban warfare and concluding that Israel cannot possibly pop one on Hamas without accidentally obliterating a couple of hundred thousand (ish) Palestinian children.
Who to believe? Who to believe?
I thought you were going not going to comment on subjects on which, by your own admission, you are out of your depth?
On another note, a local FB group has just had reports of a XL Bully loose near the end of the path that most of the secondary and primary school kids take - and which I will be taking in less than an hour. It is apparently acting 'aggressively'.
I wouldn't know a XL Bully if I saw one (compared to, say, a Bulldog), and goodness knows if acting aggressively just meant that it was sitting on the grass licking its own privates.
But it is another indication that the issue has some cut-through.
The school has been informed, at least.
You will know them when you see them. They are absolutely enormous and look like the Dogs from Hell
They could kill a child in seconds. It is a fucking disgrace that this pathetic government hasn't acted already
I'm as neutral as I can be about Israel/Palestine etc, and like most people sympathise with good people on both sides and not with bad people on both sides.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Do you think that hostages are more or less likely to be released by Israel indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians? Why is it that Israelis who have lost loved ones, some even relatives of those kidnapped, can clearly say that more violence from the state of Israel and Hamas will not solve anything or bring anyone back from the dead, and will only continue a cycle of killing and dying, dying and killing; yet western allies can only wring their hands at the clear breaches of the "international laws based order" that Israel is carrying out.
Have you see the ratio of hostage releases? Israel released 1,027 prisoners in order to get one soldier, Gilad Shalit, back. And allegedly at least one of those released prisoners was involved in organising the atrocity in Israel.
I haven't defended a single thing Hamas has done. In fact the opposite - I have clearly stated that it is morally unjustifiable. But one side doing the abhorrent does not give the other side carte blanche to also do the abhorrent.
What would be the good and better way of releasing the hostages? It's undeniably a war crime, time has elapsed for release to occur, and releasing them is beyond doubt a good thing to do and in itself is entirely lawful.
If you're asking what do I think is incumbent on Hamas, my position is of course they should release all hostages with no strings, make it clear where those hostages are and provide them safe passage out of Gaza. That would require them to telegraph that, publicly and/or through special channels.
And the next step if that has not occurred after a lapse of time? (Time matters for a number of reasons, not least the hostages including children).
From the position of Israel? The extraction of those hostages in such a way that minimises civilian casualties. At no point does that include a mass bombing campaign of urban areas, the mass starving of civilians, the mass arming of Israeli civilians alongside messages from the government to kill any Palestinian that may or may not be Hamas, etc etc.
The other day I quoted A Man For All Seasons, and I will do so again:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
What, exactly, is your military experience in, say, recovering hostages, fighting terrorists, fighting any sort of war etc.,?
Just so that we can assess your comments on what Israel should and should not do in the light of your expertise in such matters?
For myself, I find the suggestion that Israel should ask Egypt for the addresses of Hamas commanders so that they can be arrested at their homes grimly amusing. But a tad La La Landish. But what do I know - I am not a military person. Perhaps you are.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the IDF aren't on the phone, right now, to @148grss to find out how to completely deal with Hamas while causing just one casualty
No need they are green lighted for Genocide by Sunak SKS and most of the West (Spain excepted)
On another note, a local FB group has just had reports of a XL Bully loose near the end of the path that most of the secondary and primary school kids take - and which I will be taking in less than an hour. It is apparently acting 'aggressively'.
I wouldn't know a XL Bully if I saw one (compared to, say, a Bulldog), and goodness knows if acting aggressively just meant that it was sitting on the grass licking its own privates.
But it is another indication that the issue has some cut-through.
The school has been informed, at least.
You will know them when you see them. They are absolutely enormous and look like the Dogs from Hell
They could kill a child in seconds. It is a fucking disgrace that this pathetic government hasn't acted already
What form should this action take?
I'd like to see them all put down (plus all other dangerous breeds) but can you imagine the trouble that would cause prising them from the owners and then the government would get a backlash for murdering doggies.
If the Tories hold Mid Beds then the bitter recriminations will start between Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t expect it though to last into the general election as you’re not going to waste time and money fighting unwillable seats .
You can actually see how it helps for them to have this blood-letting now, when it barely matters in the grand scheme of things. Get it out of the system now, and emphasize the need not to trip each other up in the General Election campaign when all focus is on getting the Tories out, and plenty of seats to go round for both parties.
On another note, a local FB group has just had reports of a XL Bully loose near the end of the path that most of the secondary and primary school kids take - and which I will be taking in less than an hour. It is apparently acting 'aggressively'.
I wouldn't know a XL Bully if I saw one (compared to, say, a Bulldog), and goodness knows if acting aggressively just meant that it was sitting on the grass licking its own privates.
But it is another indication that the issue has some cut-through.
The school has been informed, at least.
You will know them when you see them. They are absolutely enormous and look like the Dogs from Hell
They could kill a child in seconds. It is a fucking disgrace that this pathetic government hasn't acted already
What form should this action take?
I'd like to see them all put down (plus all other dangerous breeds) but can you imagine the trouble that would cause prising them from the owners and then the government would get a backlash for murdering doggies.
At the risk of upsetting one or two folk Sky News says it has seen a confidential Conservative telephone polling of Mid Beds and Tamworth. Mid Beds says the Cons vote will halve to 28-33%. So they have lost between 27 and 32%. However only 5% is going to Labour. Where is the other 23-28% going? This may also help to explain the Lib Dems apparent cautious optimism But of course there is the Independent and Reform. Fascinating. Looks like 35% is the winning line.
It's not totally obvious that the different percentages are all of the same base.
The memo does say directly that the "lost" Tories are overwhelmingly just sitting it out, with "very few direct switchers to opposition parties". That corresponds broadly to my impression although I met more Con-Lab switchers than 1 in 20. I still think Labour have a decent shot at it, if the LibDem effort doesn't undermine the tactical voting effort without bringing themselves within reach.
More strategically, both Opposition parties need to keep in mind that the Tory vote is basically just staying at home. That might not still hold in a year's time.
Indeed Nick, well put. Although in my heart I want you guys to win the seat, I do think both opposition parties need teaching a lesson. My concern however is that while Labour will learn that lesson, the Liberals will not. They give every impression of feeling entitled to win every by-election – as the extremely silly post by @Barnesian the other day that you aptly responded to makes clear.
If the Tories hold Mid Beds then the bitter recriminations will start between Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t expect it though to last into the general election as you’re not going to waste time and money fighting unwillable seats .
There was an absolutely stark-raving crackers post from @Barnesian on here which claimed that the Liberals have no chance of winning a by-election unless Labour concedes it, and therefore Labour should have conceded it (even though the Liberals were in THIRD place).
Barnesian then went on to say that, as that nasty big bully boy Labour has decided to fight the seat in which it is the current challenger, he hopes the Tories win. A better exposition of Yellow Peril entitlement one could barely craft oneself.
He was, quite rightly, put in his place by @NickPalmer, as I recall. But Labour themselves are far from blameless – they should have been quicker sending the troops into Mid Beds and made it crystal clear to the Liberals from Day Zero that they weren't going to concede this one and hand them a free pass (as they rightly did in Somerton).
Lots of encouragement for Libdems to come up and help in Mid Beds with regular emails and phone calls.
It looks like that I will be based in Flitwick on Thursday. This is the largest town in the constituency but is only around 10% of the electorate so the GOTV campaign will need to be carefully managed.
If more than 30% is a winning score then focused activity on Thursday will be required to maximise the diffential voting pattern.
IMO based on the four canvass rounds that I've been on, the LibDems are behind by a large margin, and their effort will literally help the Tories beat Labour, as Barnesian says he'd prefer. I do expect that to have negative effects on tactical voting at the GE (I know three people personally in Godalming, a LibDem target, who voted tactically for them last time and won't do so again in protest at their "greediness"). So it's doubly beneficial for the Tories - both in holding the seat and weakening tactical efforts in the future.
I do think it's difficult for the LibDems to simply sit out two by-elections (this is also why appealing to the Greens to stay out rarely works), so I'm not as cheesed off as some, but I do think that the effort they're making has turned out to be against everyone's interest except the Tories, and perhaps some LibDems with the wider interest in mind will give polling day a miss.
I'll be helping Labour in Flitwick too on Thursday, Verulamius, so perhaps our paths will cross. I'll look out for anyone who looks like a centurion.
The Lib Dems have a realistic chance of winning this. Not as good a chance as Labour, but still a chance.
So, why on earth should they clear the path for Labour? They are not the posh Remainers'/rural wing of the Labour Party. If the Conservatives do hold it by a whisker, it's not going to make any difference to Parliamentary arithmetic. Whereas, for a party with 11 seats, every extra seat is a big deal.
Comments
Video footage of the explosion shows no projectile, suggesting it couldn’t have been an Israeli airstrike.
https://x.com/isnjh/status/1713224971345170790
This wasn't the amazing glorious news you were so happy about yesterday, was it?
And if Hamas continues, Israel lets loose. Although I daresay some on here would still blame Israel.
It's a small hope, but it's perhaps the best short-term thing that could happen.
https://news.sky.com/story/israel-hamas-war-latest-updates-gaza-sky-news-live-blog-12978800
The implication that the only answer is to start bombing the Palestinians into oblivion and calling them all animals that need to be put down and so on and so on - that has nothing to do with dealing with Hamas.
What is undeniable is that Hamas in taking and holding hostages has committed a war crime. What is odd is that the Arab and Islamic world is not putting immense and irresistible pressure on Hamas to release them.
As long as they are held then, while Israel's critics can say that the attacks and blockades on Gaza are siege/war crimes etc and they should desist, they have also to explain how Israel should go about rescuing the hostages.
As it happens the hostage situation is one where it isn't deniable that it is a war crime, AND is capable, unlike killings, of being put right at this moment.
Again, I ask you how you *only* target Hamas, ensuring no civilian casualties?
I don't think anyone is calling for this, but I find dishonest language such as this completely abhorrent. You don't want a "proportionate" response at all, you want Israel to be held to a much higher standard in this conflict and to show far more restraint than Hamas. And even then you'll direct your criticism at Israel far more than you ever did against Hamas.
I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with holding Israel to a higher standard, but at least be honest about it, instead of hiding behind nonsensical language that literally means the opposite of what you're intending it to mean.
Trump used the image "Migrants are poisoning the blood of our country".
The man is deranged.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-trump-white-supremacist-migrants-poison-country-us-0ds7b6kbw
(for the record I do not have a Star Trek uniform and have not worn one in adulthood)
Remember how everyone assumed Russia could just roll its tanks into Kyiv, and it would all be over in a matter of days? Even the US were offering to airlift Zelenskyy out, which is when he made his "we need ammunition, not a ride" speech.
While they are better funded, better trained, and clearly with much greater justification for the fight, Israel massing huge conventional forces on the border and "doing a Russia rolling into Kyiv" could end up in the same place. Half their tanks wiped out on day 1, by a few kids with cardboard drones and xbox controllers.
Israel need to think long and hard about how to actually eliminate Hamas, because I suspect "conventional warfare" won't get them much further than more and more steeped in their own blood, assuming Hamas are being trained and supplied by Iran.
Barnesian then went on to say that, as that nasty big bully boy Labour has decided to fight the seat in which it is the current challenger, he hopes the Tories win. A better exposition of Yellow Peril entitlement one could barely craft oneself.
He was, quite rightly, put in his place by @NickPalmer, as I recall. But Labour themselves are far from blameless – they should have been quicker sending the troops into Mid Beds and made it crystal clear to the Liberals from Day Zero that they weren't going to concede this one and hand them a free pass (as they rightly did in Somerton).
And then you get this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/17/hamas-releases-video-of-french-israeli-woman-held-hostage
Of course, you will defend that.
So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them - ask Egyptian and US intelligence that had warned them an attack was imminent, use your intelligence network, and target specific areas and specific people you can say are clearly part of the group responsible for the attack. Is it reasonable to bomb a neighbourhood to kill one soldier? No. If it is your position that it is too hard to find Hamas fighters therefore just killing everyone and "letting God sort it out" is the next best thing - I disagree.
I wonder if the Americans have proposed much tougher action against Iran. To persuade Bibi to hold back
Ultimately Iran is the enemy of both nations
Still waiting if you have a mo' for your thoughts as per my previous post. I mean this is a discussion board, not a meta-analysis smartarse forum (although the latter is more comfortable for many).
What's your take?
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1714250238666404249
It's not totally obvious that the different percentages are all of the same base.
It looks like that I will be based in Flitwick on Thursday. This is the largest town in the constituency but is only around 10% of the electorate so the GOTV campaign will need to be carefully managed.
If more than 30% is a winning score then focused activity on Thursday will be required to maximise the diffential voting pattern.
It’s not ideal for the Palestinians who will lose their homes but it’s probably the best way to minimise civilians losses whilst reassuring Israelis that this can’t happen again.
Why?
"So find out where Hamas fighters are and kill them"
How do you kill them - especially if you do not want any collateral damage. Is there some magic "Hamas finder" bullet that you're not telling us about?
I want peace. I don't want Israel destroyed. I don't want the West Bank or Gaza destroyed, either. *Your* viewpoint will directly lead to Israel being destroyed, by making it impossible for them to fight back.
Again, I have to ask why.
I suspect the anti-Labour vote will be sufficiently split CP/LD/Reform/MacKay to allow Labour to come through the middle. If so it will be that conservatives not voting that will have decided it.
Neither do you. You can believe in magic and pixies, but that does not make them a reality.
Is it possible for Hamas to deal with Israel without killing thousands? If so, why are they doing it?
It wasn't possible for the US to destroy Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein's forces or ISIS without inflicting mass civilian casualties, and those were in large countries with lots of open spaces. How you expect Israel to manage in a single massively overpopulated urban area is beyond me.
Watch the CivDiv video on YouTube where the Belgian and American mercs are trying to kill a BMP-2 with an NLAW near Kharkov. That's the reality of infantry vs armour warfare. It's exhausting, stressful and dangerous. The infantry have to be some combination of astute, brave and lucky to prevail.
If the implications of the SMO have not been fully internalised by Hamas they certainly will have been by Iran and, by extension, Hezb and their other Shi'ite militia.
"Why Laser Weapons Didn't Work, But Are Now Coming Back", Not What You Think, YouTube, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBsQ6fyr1WE , 14 mins
I have made my position quite clear - that the mass bombing of civilians is not a justifiable military response.
Your position seems to be if that Israel is allowed to kill as many Palestinians as it can in the name of self defence and eliminating Hamas. You seem to believe that any suggestion to not do an immediate knee jerk massacre of Palestinians is itself a defence of the unacceptable killing of Israeli innocents. If that is so, the only acceptable solution for you is to say that the killing of all Palestinians and, indeed, letting God sort them out is, somehow, acceptable if that were the course taken by Israel. I simply disagree.
"Mussolini on a lamp post at the corner of the street ..."
When Israel attacks Hamas, the targets will be military and state infrastructure, and any civilian casualties will be considered incidental and unfortunate.
The other day I quoted A Man For All Seasons, and I will do so again:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
b) Please repeat the questions, and I shall try to answer them.
"Your position seems to be if that Israel is allowed to kill as many Palestinians as it can in the name of self defence and eliminating Hamas. "
No, that's not my position. My position is actually slightly woolly, as I have little idea what the right, or moral, answer to this mess is. But I do know that your position is utterly untenable and, in fact, immoral.
"If that is so, the only acceptable solution for you is to say that the killing of all Palestinians and, indeed, letting God sort them out is, somehow, acceptable if that were the course taken by Israel. I simply disagree. "
Again, that's not my position. I've given one or two reasonably good ways forward to this before, including one on this very thread. But I do wonder why your position seems to leave Israel unable to do anything against a state government that wants to wipe it off the map.
This is my favourite. Indeed it's one of my favourite buildings of the entire twentieth century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_della_Civiltà_Italiana#/media/File:Palazzo_della_civiltà_del_lavoro_(EUR,_Rome)_(5904657870).jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_della_Civiltà_Italiana
I do think it's difficult for the LibDems to simply sit out two by-elections (this is also why appealing to the Greens to stay out rarely works), so I'm not as cheesed off as some, but I do think that the effort they're making has turned out to be against everyone's interest except the Tories, and perhaps some LibDems with the wider interest in mind will give polling day a miss.
I'll be helping Labour in Flitwick too on Thursday, Verulamius, so perhaps our paths will cross. I'll look out for anyone who looks like a centurion.
Clues are that it claims candidates and PM are personally going down well with voters (& blame lies with Dorries/Pincher), that the vast majority of the problem is Tories staying at home rather than switching, and projection of Tory vote cut in half (which is possible but would be substantially worse than Selby). This feels very much like expectation management and getting your excuses in early.
If it is a plant, it's somewhat positive news for the Lib Dems in Bedfordshire, as it talks them down and Labour up so seems intended to supress the Lib Dem vote rather than Labour.
Be interesting to see how this affects the next local elections.
In 2008 he got Outline Planning Permission for various developments (remember the controversy), including just uhder 1500 lodges, houses etc.
If his Statement of Financial Condition 2014-2018 he included 1000 extra Planning Permissions in his documents. That is a value inflation of an extra £50m -> £100m (my very -ish number).
Since PPs normally expire after 3 years, there is also a slightly complex question of whether the ones he had had were still extant.
https://youtu.be/GwGBqWhOHpo?t=515
More strategically, both Opposition parties need to keep in mind that the Tory vote is basically just staying at home. That might not still hold in a year's time.
Just so that we can assess your comments on what Israel should and should not do in the light of your expertise in such matters?
For myself, I find the suggestion that Israel should ask Egypt for the addresses of Hamas commanders so that they can be arrested at their homes grimly amusing. But a tad La La Landish. But what do I know - I am not a military person. Perhaps you are.
I wouldn't know a XL Bully if I saw one (compared to, say, a Bulldog), and goodness knows if acting aggressively just meant that it was sitting on the grass licking its own privates.
But it is another indication that the issue has some cut-through.
The school has been informed, at least.
At the Tory conference, it was clear that Tory MPs had been asked to help in both, though I only saw two Tory canvassers during the two days I was there.
The sad thing is that evil has a lot of supporters. This should not come as a surprise to us. But it does. So we have to keep relearning the lessons - and in the process a lot of blood is shed.
Two quotes come to mind at a time like this -
1. Albert Camus - "Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."
2. "Totalitarianism of the Left, much like an earlier totalitarianism of the Right, was about violence and power and control, and it appealed because of these features, not in spite of them." - Tony Judt
More the "...and Friends" but, but it should suffice.
Letting the Tories hold on, if they do, would be an unfortunate result of our electoral system.
If only there was a way where all parties could fight for what they believe in and the electorate wasn't forced to make decisions about who was the main challenger.
Who to believe? Who to believe?
They could kill a child in seconds. It is a fucking disgrace that this pathetic government hasn't acted already
I'd like to see them all put down (plus all other dangerous breeds) but can you imagine the trouble that would cause prising them from the owners and then the government would get a backlash for murdering doggies.
How often have we underestimated by-election swings?
Just be careful what you wish for, because it might not be what you expect.
I predict Lab finish 3rd in MB
So, why on earth should they clear the path for Labour? They are not the posh Remainers'/rural wing of the Labour Party. If the Conservatives do hold it by a whisker, it's not going to make any difference to Parliamentary arithmetic. Whereas, for a party with 11 seats, every extra seat is a big deal.