The most hopeful I can be in the present situation is that if Gaza is freed of Hamas control, maybe, just maybe there is the possibility for a seed towards eventual peace to start growing.
There is much talk about Israel having the right to defend itself (which it does). We now also need to be talking about the right of Gaza to stabilise and develop itself. The only way towards an end of this conflict (short of mass ethnic cleansing) is for Gaza to be able to operate as a stable polity rather than a failed, blockaded no-man’s land. If Hamas do fall, then the world has a chance, maybe a small chance, but a chance nevertheless, to back the development of a stable replacement government able to treat and trade and encourage growth and development. And the West, and Israel, and other Arab nations, have a responsibility to aid in that process. Of course the recent historical examples of regime change coming at the barrel of a gun - Iraq and Afghanistan - have not been happy ones. But we have to hope. If Gaza and Gazans are simply left to the mercy of a political vacuum and a devastated land and continued blockade, there will never be peace. The cycle will simply continue.
The biggest fallacy I see get quoted here is because Hamas wants war, Israel shouldn't fight one.
What should Israel do instead? Rollover and play dead? Let Hamas strike them and just turn the other cheek and say "come, take more hostages, rape more women, kill more babies, be our guest"?
When the other party wants war, then sometimes the only thing to do is give them what they want - and defeat them until they don't want it anymore.
The Jihadis are no better than Nazi Germany. They lack its power, but they have the same authoritarian rule in Gaza, anyone who speaks against them would get murdered, they've destroyed any nascent democracy there, and if they had the chance they would genocidally murder every single Jew "from the river to the sea" as they openly say. Their writings are as horrific and evil and as open as Mein Kampf.
When the Nazis wanted war, we didn't turn around and say "well you want war, so we're not playing your game, no war for you". We eventually said "if there needs to be war, there will be war, and we will beat you".
That is exactly the situation Israel faces, for its survival, and they need to fight the war and fight it to win.
Any civilians caught in the crossfire its a tragedy, but their concerns should be as secondary to Israel as German civilians concerns were to us in WWII. In war you have to put your own people first - if only Hamas felt the same, the Palestinians would not be in the situation they're in.
You are a psychopath.
Wanting fascists defeated and democracies to be able to live in peace is not psychopathic.
Your moral compass is broken.
You literally called for ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity. If any moral compasses are broken, it’s yours.
Members of the Israel regime have literally admitted they are fascists.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
Who knows. It is easily possible that Hezbollah attacks from the north, the West Bank erupts, Iran lobs a few missiles and suddenly Israel itself seems mortally endangered - and then sympathy will get behind Israel
I meant to post this a few days ago, which echoes your concerns:
The single most positive thing about Afghanistan atm is their cricket team, which is interesting because football was more popular than cricket there until recently.
How is domestic cricket structured in Afghanistan? Do we have anything to learn from them?
I wish someone would sponsor a match between the England 50-over XI and an England over-50 XI. The oldies might just be in with a chance on current form.
What happened on 7th October was unspeakably evil, utterly dehumanising both the victims and those who did it. Israel is entitled to vengeance, no one can deny that.
But the Secretary General of the UN was not wrong to say this evil did not happen in a vacuum. The way Palestinians have been treated by Israel since at least 1967, particularly in Gaza, is also dehumanising and provokes both desperation and hatred. If Israel wishes to live in peace it must allow the Palestinians to live peaceably, to have some skin in the game, the chance to progress, make money, acquire skills and provide for their children.
Whilst the anger, the revulsion and the contempt on the part of Israel is understandable they need to come to terms with this and find ways to facilitate it whilst rightly protecting their own security.
Yup. This is awfully good on getting beyond the cartoon of goodies and baddies.
Israel now has been forced to look beyond deterrence. It has now concluded that it is dealing with an entity that has never truly been deterred and can’t be deterred in the future. Wilder elements in Israel may fantasise about pushing all the Gazans out of the territory but that is not a serious option. This where the other flaw in Israel’s past deterrence strategy becomes painfully evident. It has not been accompanied by a more positive political strategy. The only long-term vision Israel offers is a Gaza without Hamas. The chaos and instability that would result if Gaza was turned into an ungovernable space without anyone in charge would serve nobody’s interests. A way will have to be found to fill the space...
So if Israel can’t find a government for Gaza someone else will have to. Here the main initiative will have to come from the Arab world, probably in concert with the US. This seems to be the conclusion of many of the analyses of those thinking about the aftermath of this war. It is possible, for example, to imagine at some point a multilateral conference including the main Arab and Western players, with Israel on the sidelines, tasked to come up with a viable government for Gaza, and manage the influx of aid necessary if the territory is to recover from the traumas of the past weeks as well as look to the possibilities for future development. It would also need to consider both Gaza’s internal security and how to stop it causing trouble to its neighbours (Egypt as well as Israel) in the future.
Interesting link, thank you. Coincidentally the author is Laurence Freedman[1], whose latest book[2] is on display at my local library: I leafed thru it last week. I don't know if I'll get a copy because his writing style (so important!) does not necessarily mesh with my head, but I'll give it another look
[2] Freedman, Lawrence (2022). Command: The Politics of Military Operations from Korea to Ukraine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Father of Sam Freedman, education policy wonk and blogger, husband of Judith Freedman, tax policy academic. All 3 very active on TwiX. Quite a high profile nuclear facility.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
Who knows. It is easily possible that Hezbollah attacks from the north, the West Bank erupts, Iran lobs a few missiles and suddenly Israel itself seems mortally endangered - and then sympathy will get behind Israel
I meant to post this a few days ago, which echoes your concerns:
The biggest fallacy I see get quoted here is because Hamas wants war, Israel shouldn't fight one.
What should Israel do instead? Rollover and play dead? Let Hamas strike them and just turn the other cheek and say "come, take more hostages, rape more women, kill more babies, be our guest"?
When the other party wants war, then sometimes the only thing to do is give them what they want - and defeat them until they don't want it anymore.
The Jihadis are no better than Nazi Germany. They lack its power, but they have the same authoritarian rule in Gaza, anyone who speaks against them would get murdered, they've destroyed any nascent democracy there, and if they had the chance they would genocidally murder every single Jew "from the river to the sea" as they openly say. Their writings are as horrific and evil and as open as Mein Kampf.
When the Nazis wanted war, we didn't turn around and say "well you want war, so we're not playing your game, no war for you". We eventually said "if there needs to be war, there will be war, and we will beat you".
That is exactly the situation Israel faces, for its survival, and they need to fight the war and fight it to win.
Any civilians caught in the crossfire its a tragedy, but their concerns should be as secondary to Israel as German civilians concerns were to us in WWII. In war you have to put your own people first - if only Hamas felt the same, the Palestinians would not be in the situation they're in.
You are a psychopath.
Wanting fascists defeated and democracies to be able to live in peace is not psychopathic.
Your moral compass is broken.
You literally called for ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity. If any moral compasses are broken, it’s yours.
Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.
But it should be bloodless and voluntary I said and was proposed as a lesser evil than genocide.
The movement of people is a far lesser crime than the murder of them.
To go full Godwin, I am struck by this juxtaposition:
Hitler, 22 August 1939, “Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?”, or "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Bart, 29 October 2023, “Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.”
Yes, Hitler and Hamas support annihilation. Murder, killing them.
I do not. I am OK with voluntary emigration, I always have been and always will be.
Ah yes, voluntary. A word that had done a lot of the heavy lifting, historically.
What’s the ping of becoming what you hate? Especially when it doesn’t even get you a win?
My proposal, which @bondegezou has called "ethnic cleansing" was that an agreement should be reached at the cost of possibly tens of billions of dollars that anyone who wants to move away from the conflict zone can do so and be given a considerable sum of money to help them start a new life somewhere else. Let any Gazan who wants to move away from there do so, and give them something like $5000 or $10000 to start them off a new life in a new home.
And give aid to the country taking the migrants as well.
Bondegezou calls it ethnic cleansing, I call it migration or refuge, and migration or refuge happens all over the planet. There are Ukrainian refugees all around us in this country, many of whom will never go back to Ukraine.
I said that I would oppose any violence to compel people to move. I want people to have a choice, if they want to, do so - and it will make them safer than remaining caught in the crossfires of a war. If any choose not to take up that choice, they should be able to remain where they are.
There should be absolutely no excuse for violence deliberately targeting civilians (as opposed to human shields getting killed in proportionate warfare).
You have, upthread, referred to your own proposal as ethnic cleansing, so I’m unclear why you’re now complaining about me doing so.
Your proposal, when you discussed it before, was with the explicit aim of removing all Palestinians from Gaza, as you argued that is the only way to achieve peace. I believe we should support refugees fleeing a war zone and we should work for an end result where they can move back. You do not.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
You can say that you don't mean genocide of the Jews when you say it; you may even believe it. But others screeching it *will* be meaning that, and your shouting of it gives power to them and their calls.
They are phrases to avoid; not excuse.
Anyone who claims “from the river to the sea” isn’t calling the destruction of Israel is naive or stupid.
As it happens, 90% of the time they actually are naive and just haven’t read into the issue they are protesting about. They want goodies and baddies, and simplicity, and Israel/Palestine isn’t like that.
The only sensible peace proposal starts with “I wouldn’t start from here but we are where are…” and this issue is that (for understandable reasons) that doesn’t butter any Palestinian parsnips.
Apologies if I'm mistaken, but don't Likud and other right-wing Israelis also want a land "from the river to the sea"?
From my little knowledge, I don't think that's Likud's stated policy. There will be hardliners who think that (*), but it's not as though the people screeching it on the streets in the UK are referring to an Israeli state.
(*) You can find hardliners in any country who think very odd (and sometimes self-defeating) things.
It isn't their 'stated policy' but it is definitely what they want. The point is they realise it's an impossible trilemma so officially at least their policy is different.
Or as I was told at a seminar in Tel Aviv, 'most Israelis want a country that's three things - Jewish, democratic and from the river to the sea. But you can only have any two of those.'
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
Who knows. It is easily possible that Hezbollah attacks from the north, the West Bank erupts, Iran lobs a few missiles and suddenly Israel itself seems mortally endangered - and then sympathy will get behind Israel
I meant to post this a few days ago, which echoes your concerns:
I said a couple of weeks ago everyone should just talk about something else, and I wasn't wrong.
I’m impressed at how quickly people have become experts on the Middle East, having previously been experts on Ukraine/Russia.
Remarkable.
I've never claimed to be an expert about any military conflict, but I find it weird that you should seek to implicitly restrict public debate only to experts. I would be surprised if you were an expert on all the things you have ever given an opinion on.
The biggest fallacy I see get quoted here is because Hamas wants war, Israel shouldn't fight one.
What should Israel do instead? Rollover and play dead? Let Hamas strike them and just turn the other cheek and say "come, take more hostages, rape more women, kill more babies, be our guest"?
When the other party wants war, then sometimes the only thing to do is give them what they want - and defeat them until they don't want it anymore.
The Jihadis are no better than Nazi Germany. They lack its power, but they have the same authoritarian rule in Gaza, anyone who speaks against them would get murdered, they've destroyed any nascent democracy there, and if they had the chance they would genocidally murder every single Jew "from the river to the sea" as they openly say. Their writings are as horrific and evil and as open as Mein Kampf.
When the Nazis wanted war, we didn't turn around and say "well you want war, so we're not playing your game, no war for you". We eventually said "if there needs to be war, there will be war, and we will beat you".
That is exactly the situation Israel faces, for its survival, and they need to fight the war and fight it to win.
Any civilians caught in the crossfire its a tragedy, but their concerns should be as secondary to Israel as German civilians concerns were to us in WWII. In war you have to put your own people first - if only Hamas felt the same, the Palestinians would not be in the situation they're in.
You are a psychopath.
Wanting fascists defeated and democracies to be able to live in peace is not psychopathic.
Your moral compass is broken.
You literally called for ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity. If any moral compasses are broken, it’s yours.
Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.
But it should be bloodless and voluntary I said and was proposed as a lesser evil than genocide.
The movement of people is a far lesser crime than the murder of them.
To go full Godwin, I am struck by this juxtaposition:
Hitler, 22 August 1939, “Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?”, or "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Bart, 29 October 2023, “Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.”
Yes, Hitler and Hamas support annihilation. Murder, killing them.
I do not. I am OK with voluntary emigration, I always have been and always will be.
Ah yes, voluntary. A word that had done a lot of the heavy lifting, historically.
What’s the ping of becoming what you hate? Especially when it doesn’t even get you a win?
My proposal, which @bondegezou has called "ethnic cleansing" was that an agreement should be reached at the cost of possibly tens of billions of dollars that anyone who wants to move away from the conflict zone can do so and be given a considerable sum of money to help them start a new life somewhere else. Let any Gazan who wants to move away from there do so, and give them something like $5000 or $10000 to start them off a new life in a new home.
And give aid to the country taking the migrants as well.
Bondegezou calls it ethnic cleansing, I call it migration or refuge, and migration or refuge happens all over the planet. There are Ukrainian refugees all around us in this country, many of whom will never go back to Ukraine.
I said that I would oppose any violence to compel people to move. I want people to have a choice, if they want to, do so - and it will make them safer than remaining caught in the crossfires of a war. If any choose not to take up that choice, they should be able to remain where they are.
There should be absolutely no excuse for violence deliberately targeting civilians (as opposed to human shields getting killed in proportionate warfare).
You have, upthread, referred to your own proposal as ethnic cleansing, so I’m unclear why you’re now complaining about me doing so.
Your proposal, when you discussed it before, was with the explicit aim of removing all Palestinians from Gaza, as you argued that is the only way to achieve peace. I believe we should support refugees fleeing a war zone and we should work for an end result where they can move back. You do not.
No, I didn't, I responded to you calling it. I would not call it ethnic cleansing.
Sometimes I think refugees should be able to move back, sometimes its not always feasible, in which case they should be supported to be able to start a new life elsewhere.
We have many in this country who have either arrived as refugees, or are the children/grandchildren etc of those who arrived as refugees. Should they all be compelled either morally or legally to "return to where they came from"?
You can say that you don't mean genocide of the Jews when you say it; you may even believe it. But others screeching it *will* be meaning that, and your shouting of it gives power to them and their calls.
They are phrases to avoid; not excuse.
Anyone who claims “from the river to the sea” isn’t calling the destruction of Israel is naive or stupid.
As it happens, 90% of the time they actually are naive and just haven’t read into the issue they are protesting about. They want goodies and baddies, and simplicity, and Israel/Palestine isn’t like that.
The only sensible peace proposal starts with “I wouldn’t start from here but we are where are…” and this issue is that (for understandable reasons) that doesn’t butter any Palestinian parsnips.
Apologies if I'm mistaken, but don't Likud and other right-wing Israelis also want a land "from the river to the sea"?
From my little knowledge, I don't think that's Likud's stated policy. There will be hardliners who think that (*), but it's not as though the people screeching it on the streets in the UK are referring to an Israeli state.
(*) You can find hardliners in any country who think very odd (and sometimes self-defeating) things.
It isn't their 'stated policy' but it is definitely what they want. The point is they realise it's an impossible trilemma so officially at least their policy is different.
Or as I was told at a seminar in Tel Aviv, 'most Israelis want a country that's three things - Jewish, democratic and from the river to the sea. But you can only have any two of those.'
I've noticed some quite combative statements from Jake Berry recently regarding Sunak/Hunt and their lack of conservative policies - he is of course one of the leaders of the 'New Conservatives' which I guess would best be described as the red wall/low immigration caucus within the Tory Party, and is a prominent signatory to the tax pledge.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
To my mind, the best argument so far would be what would happen were each side to disarm.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
Who knows. It is easily possible that Hezbollah attacks from the north, the West Bank erupts, Iran lobs a few missiles and suddenly Israel itself seems mortally endangered - and then sympathy will get behind Israel
I meant to post this a few days ago, which echoes your concerns:
The biggest fallacy I see get quoted here is because Hamas wants war, Israel shouldn't fight one.
What should Israel do instead? Rollover and play dead? Let Hamas strike them and just turn the other cheek and say "come, take more hostages, rape more women, kill more babies, be our guest"?
When the other party wants war, then sometimes the only thing to do is give them what they want - and defeat them until they don't want it anymore.
The Jihadis are no better than Nazi Germany. They lack its power, but they have the same authoritarian rule in Gaza, anyone who speaks against them would get murdered, they've destroyed any nascent democracy there, and if they had the chance they would genocidally murder every single Jew "from the river to the sea" as they openly say. Their writings are as horrific and evil and as open as Mein Kampf.
When the Nazis wanted war, we didn't turn around and say "well you want war, so we're not playing your game, no war for you". We eventually said "if there needs to be war, there will be war, and we will beat you".
That is exactly the situation Israel faces, for its survival, and they need to fight the war and fight it to win.
Any civilians caught in the crossfire its a tragedy, but their concerns should be as secondary to Israel as German civilians concerns were to us in WWII. In war you have to put your own people first - if only Hamas felt the same, the Palestinians would not be in the situation they're in.
You are a psychopath.
Wanting fascists defeated and democracies to be able to live in peace is not psychopathic.
Your moral compass is broken.
You literally called for ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity. If any moral compasses are broken, it’s yours.
Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.
But it should be bloodless and voluntary I said and was proposed as a lesser evil than genocide.
The movement of people is a far lesser crime than the murder of them.
To go full Godwin, I am struck by this juxtaposition:
Hitler, 22 August 1939, “Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?”, or "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Bart, 29 October 2023, “Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.”
Yes, Hitler and Hamas support annihilation. Murder, killing them.
I do not. I am OK with voluntary emigration, I always have been and always will be.
Ah yes, voluntary. A word that had done a lot of the heavy lifting, historically.
What’s the ping of becoming what you hate? Especially when it doesn’t even get you a win?
My proposal, which @bondegezou has called "ethnic cleansing" was that an agreement should be reached at the cost of possibly tens of billions of dollars that anyone who wants to move away from the conflict zone can do so and be given a considerable sum of money to help them start a new life somewhere else. Let any Gazan who wants to move away from there do so, and give them something like $5000 or $10000 to start them off a new life in a new home.
And give aid to the country taking the migrants as well.
Bondegezou calls it ethnic cleansing, I call it migration or refuge, and migration or refuge happens all over the planet. There are Ukrainian refugees all around us in this country, many of whom will never go back to Ukraine.
I said that I would oppose any violence to compel people to move. I want people to have a choice, if they want to, do so - and it will make them safer than remaining caught in the crossfires of a war. If any choose not to take up that choice, they should be able to remain where they are.
There should be absolutely no excuse for violence deliberately targeting civilians (as opposed to human shields getting killed in proportionate warfare).
You have, upthread, referred to your own proposal as ethnic cleansing, so I’m unclear why you’re now complaining about me doing so.
Your proposal, when you discussed it before, was with the explicit aim of removing all Palestinians from Gaza, as you argued that is the only way to achieve peace. I believe we should support refugees fleeing a war zone and we should work for an end result where they can move back. You do not.
No, I didn't, I responded to you calling it. I would not call it ethnic cleansing.
Sometimes I think refugees should be able to move back, sometimes its not always feasible, in which case they should be supported to be able to start a new life elsewhere.
We have many in this country who have either arrived as refugees, or are the children/grandchildren etc of those who arrived as refugees. Should they all be compelled either morally or legally to "return to where they came from"?
I abhor that kind of anti-migrant mentality.
You’re twisting my words. I didn’t say anything about compelling anyone to return to where they came from. I said “we should work for an end result where they can move back”.
Do you think we should work for an end result where refugees from a war can move back? You do in the case of Ukraine. You previously indicated you did not in the case of Gaza.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
To my mind, the best argument so far would be what would happen were each side to disarm.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
How’s all this being covered in UAE?
I noticed in Istanbul airport yesterday the live news tickers covering the conflict were headlined “Israeli genocide in Gaza: latest”.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
It's not a black and white difference, but I think it speaks volumes that you have to reach back to 2014 for a counterexample, compared to the contemporary celebrations of the October 7th massacres.
You can say that you don't mean genocide of the Jews when you say it; you may even believe it. But others screeching it *will* be meaning that, and your shouting of it gives power to them and their calls.
They are phrases to avoid; not excuse.
Anyone who claims “from the river to the sea” isn’t calling the destruction of Israel is naive or stupid.
As it happens, 90% of the time they actually are naive and just haven’t read into the issue they are protesting about. They want goodies and baddies, and simplicity, and Israel/Palestine isn’t like that.
The only sensible peace proposal starts with “I wouldn’t start from here but we are where are…” and this issue is that (for understandable reasons) that doesn’t butter any Palestinian parsnips.
Apologies if I'm mistaken, but don't Likud and other right-wing Israelis also want a land "from the river to the sea"?
From my little knowledge, I don't think that's Likud's stated policy. There will be hardliners who think that (*), but it's not as though the people screeching it on the streets in the UK are referring to an Israeli state.
(*) You can find hardliners in any country who think very odd (and sometimes self-defeating) things.
It isn't their 'stated policy' but it is definitely what they want. The point is they realise it's an impossible trilemma so officially at least their policy is different.
Or as I was told at a seminar in Tel Aviv, 'most Israelis want a country that's three things - Jewish, democratic and from the river to the sea. But you can only have any two of those.'
It will only come when they are confident an Israel including the West Bank will have an unassailable Jewish majority. Partly through settlements expanding the Jewish population and partly through disillusioned Palestinians emigrating.
They may be getting close to that, as I've said before. But if they act too soon they will jeopardise it.
Making sure the Palestinians in Gaza could not be involved, one way or another, would expedite that.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
Who knows. It is easily possible that Hezbollah attacks from the north, the West Bank erupts, Iran lobs a few missiles and suddenly Israel itself seems mortally endangered - and then sympathy will get behind Israel
I meant to post this a few days ago, which echoes your concerns:
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
To my mind, the best argument so far would be what would happen were each side to disarm.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
How’s all this being covered in UAE?
I noticed in Istanbul airport yesterday the live news tickers covering the conflict were headlined “Israeli genocide in Gaza: latest”.
The coverage is generally in favour of the Palestinians, but not the totally one-sided coverage we might have seen a few years ago.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
To my mind, the best argument so far would be what would happen were each side to disarm.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
I don’t think the first scenario would be so benign. If Hamas disarmed (and assuming, heroically, that another Islamist group didn’t immediately take up the gauntlet) then settler incursions would restart in Gaza and I doubt daily life would get much better.
A 2 state solution is going to require the disarming of the likes of Hamas but also some very domestically unpopular clearances of settlers on the West Bank.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
To my mind, the best argument so far would be what would happen were each side to disarm.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
The current Israeli government supports annexing much of the West Bank, which would make a 2-state solution impossible. See the article I just posted.
Hamas’s stated position (and one might have reasons to be sceptical of what they say) is to start with a Palestine in the 1967 borders.
This is not a football game where we have to take sides. We can recognise the complexities of the situation and stop acting as if a solution is as simple as writing a few paragraphs on a UK political betting site.
The other thread has been closed, which in the absence of any new news might have been the wrong choice but here we are.
I blame the end of daylight saving time, and call for an immediate judge led inquiry into keeping BST for the whole year to avoid confusing PB's editors.
(Is that the right way to do it?)
On topic - badly. Which is what Hamas wants and why Netanyahu is being even more foolish than usual.
I think Hamas would actually prefer Gaza as a wasteland occupied by Israel to a two state solution. It allows them to extend their grievance and get loads more lovely cash from their backers to maintain their personally lavish lifestyles (and kill Jews).
And unfortunately, so would Likud, who naively believe it would secure Israel's future as a Jewish state encompassing the whole of Mandatory Palestine.
The Palestinian people wouldn't, according to such information as we have, but nobody involved seems to care about them (including these idiot protestors in the West).
A hat tip to @Cyclefree for this article by Simon Sebag Montefiore:
There is one mistake in it. The number of Jews who are non-white (insofar as that label has any meaning) is around 3-3.5 million not 5 million. I think he may have added in the Muslim and Christian populations to get to 5 million but it is a little misleading.
Otherwise, it's a good article and well worth reading.
Now you've finished Sebag Montefiore's well known Zionist pleadings you might enjoy this which gives a slightly more interesting and relevant picture of things as they really are. A review by Jonathan Friedland
The other thread has been closed, which in the absence of any new news might have been the wrong choice but here we are.
I blame the end of daylight saving time, and call for an immediate judge led inquiry into keeping BST for the whole year to avoid confusing PB's editors.
(Is that the right way to do it?)
On topic - badly. Which is what Hamas wants and why Netanyahu is being even more foolish than usual.
I think Hamas would actually prefer Gaza as a wasteland occupied by Israel to a two state solution. It allows them to extend their grievance and get loads more lovely cash from their backers to maintain their personally lavish lifestyles (and kill Jews).
And unfortunately, so would Likud, who naively believe it would secure Israel's future as a Jewish state encompassing the whole of Mandatory Palestine.
The Palestinian people wouldn't, according to such information as we have, but nobody involved seems to care about them (including these idiot protestors in the West).
A hat tip to @Cyclefree for this article by Simon Sebag Montefiore:
There is one mistake in it. The number of Jews who are non-white (insofar as that label has any meaning) is around 3-3.5 million not 5 million. I think he may have added in the Muslim and Christian populations to get to 5 million but it is a little misleading.
Otherwise, it's a good article and well worth reading.
Now you've finished Sebag Montefiore's well known Zionist pleadings you might enjoy this which gives a slightly more interesting and relevant picture of things as they really are. A review by Jonathan Friedland
Reposting this from the other day as it was addressed to you but you may not have been on -
"Have you ever read Benevolence and Betrayal by Alexander Stille? You should. It's about 5 Italian Jewish families under fascism. One of them is led by a man who supports Mussolini, thinks fascism a good thing, ingratiates himself with the regime and thinks he will be safe. He is one of the good pro-Italy-under-Mussolini Jews. When I read your comments I think of that man. Too late he realises that all his sucking up and ingratiation and support for the regime is of no consequence. The only thing that matters about him is that he is a Jew - nothing else - not his support or his money or his opinions. Too late he tries to escape. He does not and is murdered.
That, Roger, is how Hamas view you. They don't care about your dislike of Netanyahu or that you call Israel a one-eyed country or that you support the Palestinian cause. They didn't care about the elderly journalist who wrote about the Sabra and Chatila massacres and Israel's shameful role in them. They still took him hostage. They didn't care about the woman who had been helping Palestinians in Gaza get medical treatment. They took her hostage too. They didn't care about the Israeli IT CEO who was building businesses inside Gaza to give good jobs to Gazans. They still killed his 15 year old daughter. They kill Jews because they are Jews - because of who they are not because of their opinions or what they have done or who they vote for. That is what their Charter says and it is what they have done and will continue doing until they are stopped. You are profoundly naive if you think otherwise."
I read it but found nothing in it relatable to me. I worked in Beirut for the first time in 1996 just as the civil war was coming to an end. P&G had chosen five directors world-wide who could shoot their Pantene ads and I was one. They split the World into six I think and asked me if I'd do one with Miss Lebanon in Beirut. Though I wasn't keen on working for them Beirut sounded interesting.
Over the two weeks of that first shoot I got to really like the Lebanese. They were bright hospitable and had an inate intelligence that was unusual in a business which was largely visual. We talked endlessly about the politics of the area as most Lebanese do. I was told how the war started. The Palestinians put up roadblocks...... In retaliation a Christan factions blew up a schoolbus ......and so it began. Twenty years of it. .....
On my first ride from the airport it looked like Gaza does now. I worked there often for the next several years and met people from every faction. I met two of Terry Waite's kidnappers I saw the Holiday Inn where the Phalangists jumped suicidally to their death.....and so on and so on. I won their top advertising ward for 'Environment' and became their favourite director and could have worked non stop there if I'd wanted to. We post- produced in London though clients with Palestinian passports couldn't get a visa. We couldn't process locally because only Israel had the facilities and that was forbidden. I needed a second passport.
I was in the Marriott Hotel by the sea when we were told to evacuate. Israel had decided to blow up a nearby power station. No one knew why. Ten power station workers were killed. I saw little little like this but lots of optimism. Israel was a fear because as they saw it they had the power and no boundaries. So was Hesbollah though it isn't seen as a terrorist organisation there as much as a political one. They run schools and hositals and to many are the good guys
So cyclefree I really do know the area and more importantly I feel I know the people. Generalising is never accurate though the Arabs I have met show a much greater humility than their Israeli counterparts which is why I fear for the citizens of Gaza more than I fear for the Israelis and much more than I fear for British Jews. a great deal of whom share my views.
All very interesting. But you don't answer my point - which is how Hamas sees you.
People who want to kill Jews do so because they are Jews and don't give a fig for your knowledge, understanding, life history or experiences. That is the point you keep missing.
I've noticed some quite combative statements from Jake Berry recently regarding Sunak/Hunt and their lack of conservative policies - he is of course one of the leaders of the 'New Conservatives' which I guess would best be described as the red wall/low immigration caucus within the Tory Party, and is a prominent signatory to the tax pledge.
Consider his CV: Minister of State: 2017-2020 Party Chairman: September-October 2022
One of the problems Johnson, Truss and Sunak had was their lack of experience near the top. However sound their instincts, they hadn't had the time at the crease to score confidently. It's one of the reasons Starmer still fumbles from time to time, and Leader of the Opposition is a much less exposed role.
If Jake Berry is the best the New Conservatives can come up with, they might as well not bother.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
Who knows. It is easily possible that Hezbollah attacks from the north, the West Bank erupts, Iran lobs a few missiles and suddenly Israel itself seems mortally endangered - and then sympathy will get behind Israel
I meant to post this a few days ago, which echoes your concerns:
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
To my mind, the best argument so far would be what would happen were each side to disarm.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
How’s all this being covered in UAE?
I noticed in Istanbul airport yesterday the live news tickers covering the conflict were headlined “Israeli genocide in Gaza: latest”.
The coverage is generally in favour of the Palestinians, but not the totally one-sided coverage we might have seen a few years ago.
IN news closer to home, protesters set up camp against destruction of RAF Scampton (of Dambusters and 617 Sqn fame, inter alia), bitterly opposing illegal behaviour by the Home Office.
Bringing back memories of Greenham Common and similar camps.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
To my mind, the best argument so far would be what would happen were each side to disarm.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
I don’t think the first scenario would be so benign. If Hamas disarmed (and assuming, heroically, that another Islamist group didn’t immediately take up the gauntlet) then settler incursions would restart in Gaza and I doubt daily life would get much better.
A 2 state solution is going to require the disarming of the likes of Hamas but also some very domestically unpopular clearances of settlers on the West Bank.
They need a new Sharon. Only someone viewed as coming from the right of Likud will be able to get away with it. Similarly the PA needs a new leader with both balls and vision.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
To my mind, the best argument so far would be what would happen were each side to disarm.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
The current Israeli government supports annexing much of the West Bank, which would make a 2-state solution impossible. See the article I just posted.
Hamas’s stated position (and one might have reasons to be sceptical of what they say) is to start with a Palestine in the 1967 borders.
This is not a football game where we have to take sides. We can recognise the complexities of the situation and stop acting as if a solution is as simple as writing a few paragraphs on a UK political betting site.
That's not actually quite its position. The 2017 charter says it would accept a state on 1967 boundaries as a temporary measure pending the creation of a Muslim state throughout the former mandate.
Edit - I suppose it's in some ways that's analogous to Collins' position on the Irish Free State: 'it gives us the freedom to win freedom.' Stepping stones you can tread on one at a time being better than floundering in an unfordable river.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
IN news closer to home, protesters set up camp against destruction of RAF Scampton (of Dambusters and 617 Sqn fame, inter alia), bitterly opposing illegal behaviour by the Home Office.
Bringing back memories of Greenham Common and similar camps.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
That's what happens in war. 🤷♂️
How much collateral damage happened in Basra when we were bombing ISIS?
Or in Dresden when we were bombing the Nazis?
Hopefully Israel continues to stick to the rules of proportionality, which it has done so far, but it must seek to eliminate Hamas as a threat, it is an existential conflict. Once Hamas are eliminated, hopefully then this war can end as WWII did with an unconditional surrender and not a ceasefire but a complete and immediate peace treaty.
You are using Dresden as an example of what to do? You know Churchill bollocked Harris for Dresden and Potsdam and hated that we had done it? No sensible person thinks Dresden was right, when applying an ounce of hindsight (or just “sight” in Churchill’s case - “are we beasts?”)
Raaqa and Mosul would be better comparators. Our side was not aiming to kill civilians, but thousands were still killed Orr injured by the bombing.
But, there was no other way to achieve victory.
Yes. Also Falujah (three times). Very occasionally you have to assault a dense urban area, but doing so is horrible. No matter how careful you are (and I broadly think the Israelis try) you look horrible from outside the Ops room.
Civilian casualties in Fallujah were remarkably light: 600 in Battle 1, 800 in Battle 2.
IN news closer to home, protesters set up camp against destruction of RAF Scampton (of Dambusters and 617 Sqn fame, inter alia), bitterly opposing illegal behaviour by the Home Office.
Bringing back memories of Greenham Common and similar camps.
Weren’t the Greenham Common protestors all in favour of digging up the place?
Nah, insoifar as they were doing it, that was the garden they planted on the road verge outside. Very right on today, and more economical for the local authority.
The real digging was down to HMG, for the humongous drive-in-one-end-and-out-the-other bunkers. Massive things, you always knew when you were flying over GC en route to Southampton or wherever.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
That's what happens in war. 🤷♂️
How much collateral damage happened in Basra when we were bombing ISIS?
Or in Dresden when we were bombing the Nazis?
Hopefully Israel continues to stick to the rules of proportionality, which it has done so far, but it must seek to eliminate Hamas as a threat, it is an existential conflict. Once Hamas are eliminated, hopefully then this war can end as WWII did with an unconditional surrender and not a ceasefire but a complete and immediate peace treaty.
You are using Dresden as an example of what to do? You know Churchill bollocked Harris for Dresden and Potsdam and hated that we had done it? No sensible person thinks Dresden was right, when applying an ounce of hindsight (or just “sight” in Churchill’s case - “are we beasts?”)
Raaqa and Mosul would be better comparators. Our side was not aiming to kill civilians, but thousands were still killed Orr injured by the bombing.
But, there was no other way to achieve victory.
Yes. Also Falujah (three times). Very occasionally you have to assault a dense urban area, but doing so is horrible. No matter how careful you are (and I broadly think the Israelis try) you look horrible from outside the Ops room.
Civilian casualties in Fallujah were remarkably light: 600 in Battle 1, 800 in Battle 2.
I don’t know where you got that from but it sounds like combatants to me.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
To my mind, the best argument so far would be what would happen were each side to disarm.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
How’s all this being covered in UAE?
I noticed in Istanbul airport yesterday the live news tickers covering the conflict were headlined “Israeli genocide in Gaza: latest”.
The coverage is generally in favour of the Palestinians, but not the totally one-sided coverage we might have seen a few years ago.
Presumably that sort of outlet is aimed at Anglophone ex-pats so likely to be more balanced than local Arabic reporting.
Potentially yes, that’s a good point. However there was widespread support here for the Abraham Accords, that saw diplomatic relations restored between UAE and Israel. There are of course plenty of satellite TV channels from across the region available out here, many of whom might be taking a very different view on events.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
It's not a black and white difference, but I think it speaks volumes that you have to reach back to 2014 for a counterexample, compared to the contemporary celebrations of the October 7th massacres.
There aren’t, contrary to Bart’s worldview, goodies and baddies here. We should never condemn, nor punish, a people for the actions of some. There are Palestinians and Jewish Israelis who want peace, and others who favour genocide. We are divorced from events. The least we can do is to not support the latter. I condemn the pro-Hamas protests; I condemn the armchair generals here (not you) who want to remove all Palestinians from Gaza.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
That's what happens in war. 🤷♂️
How much collateral damage happened in Basra when we were bombing ISIS?
Or in Dresden when we were bombing the Nazis?
Hopefully Israel continues to stick to the rules of proportionality, which it has done so far, but it must seek to eliminate Hamas as a threat, it is an existential conflict. Once Hamas are eliminated, hopefully then this war can end as WWII did with an unconditional surrender and not a ceasefire but a complete and immediate peace treaty.
You are using Dresden as an example of what to do? You know Churchill bollocked Harris for Dresden and Potsdam and hated that we had done it? No sensible person thinks Dresden was right, when applying an ounce of hindsight (or just “sight” in Churchill’s case - “are we beasts?”)
Raaqa and Mosul would be better comparators. Our side was not aiming to kill civilians, but thousands were still killed Orr injured by the bombing.
But, there was no other way to achieve victory.
Yes. Also Falujah (three times). Very occasionally you have to assault a dense urban area, but doing so is horrible. No matter how careful you are (and I broadly think the Israelis try) you look horrible from outside the Ops room.
Civilian casualties in Fallujah were remarkably light: 600 in Battle 1, 800 in Battle 2.
I don’t know where you got that from but it sounds like combatants to me.
I've noticed some quite combative statements from Jake Berry recently regarding Sunak/Hunt and their lack of conservative policies - he is of course one of the leaders of the 'New Conservatives' which I guess would best be described as the red wall/low immigration caucus within the Tory Party, and is a prominent signatory to the tax pledge.
Consider his CV: Minister of State: 2017-2020 Party Chairman: September-October 2022
One of the problems Johnson, Truss and Sunak had was their lack of experience near the top. However sound their instincts, they hadn't had the time at the crease to score confidently. It's one of the reasons Starmer still fumbles from time to time, and Leader of the Opposition is a much less exposed role.
If Jake Berry is the best the New Conservatives can come up with, they might as well not bother.
I'm not sure that I can agree - recent events have proven you wrong if anything. I remember arguing with @Jonathan who insisted that Mordaunt wasn't suitable because unlike Truss she hadn't had a top cabinet job. Perhaps Mordaunt wouldn't have worked either, but Truss's Ministerial experience clearly didn't equip her with the political smarts she needed, whether one supports her mission (I do) or not. Both Truss and Sunak held one of the great Ministries of State for a fairly long time. So did Boris, so did May. Cameron didn't, and I suspect you feel he did OK.
The most hopeful I can be in the present situation is that if Gaza is freed of Hamas control, maybe, just maybe there is the possibility for a seed towards eventual peace to start growing.
Snip...
Obviously I'm not an expert, but I think that this pretty much never happens in this sort of situation, that an extreme group is replaced by a more moderate group.
What has sometimes happens is that an extreme group has become more moderate after concluding that their maximalist strategy has failed and that they need to pursue compromise.
Consequently, I think that the military defeat of Hamas is a necessary precondition for a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians. You'd also need to see a change in the Israeli leadership, and that is something I fervently hope for, and it's easier in a democracy for extremists to be replaced by moderates.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
It's not a black and white difference, but I think it speaks volumes that you have to reach back to 2014 for a counterexample, compared to the contemporary celebrations of the October 7th massacres.
There aren’t, contrary to Bart’s worldview, goodies and baddies here. We should never condemn, nor punish, a people for the actions of some. There are Palestinians and Jewish Israelis who want peace, and others who favour genocide. We are divorced from events. The least we can do is to not support the latter. I condemn the pro-Hamas protests; I condemn the armchair generals here (not you) who want to remove all Palestinians from Gaza.
Hear hear. You, and @DavidL and others, are refreshingly sane on this topic.
I've noticed some quite combative statements from Jake Berry recently regarding Sunak/Hunt and their lack of conservative policies - he is of course one of the leaders of the 'New Conservatives' which I guess would best be described as the red wall/low immigration caucus within the Tory Party, and is a prominent signatory to the tax pledge.
Consider his CV: Minister of State: 2017-2020 Party Chairman: September-October 2022
One of the problems Johnson, Truss and Sunak had was their lack of experience near the top. However sound their instincts, they hadn't had the time at the crease to score confidently. It's one of the reasons Starmer still fumbles from time to time, and Leader of the Opposition is a much less exposed role.
If Jake Berry is the best the New Conservatives can come up with, they might as well not bother.
I'm not convinced the lack of experience was behind it. How much time should be had at the top?
Starmer has not been an MP for very long - if he becomes PM he'll have been the quickest from becoming an MP to becoming PM apart from Sunak himself - but has had 'top' Shadow portfolios for almost all that time, which is as much experience as anyone in opposition can have.
Truss had been an MP for only 12 years, but 8 of those had been as a Cabinet Minister (or 'attends cabinet' depending on how Chief Secretary of the Treasury was counted at the time), which is quite a lot of experience at the top for a modern political career. She had experience of multiple roles and departments, and serving under different PMs, showing flexibility.
Boris had less time at the top, within parliament at least, than Sunak, Truss, or Starmer, but I don't think lack of such experience was what brought him down.
I wrote a couple of articles back in March 2020 about warning signs of illiberalism in our country. Of course, what with other events no-one paid a blind bit of notice.
I am reposting them now because they are, IMO, as - if not more - relevant than ever.
This section from the second article seems pertinent today.
Anti Semitism has been devalued by all the false claims made back then.
As for you bleating on about how terrible it is for British Jews right now.
You have no sense of proportion
There are 2 million in Gaza who are suffering a genocidal attack from Netanyahu. So I think the lot of British Jews is a lot better than those Gazans don't you. Your priorities are all to cock.
The petition in solidarity with British Jews has less100 signatories the one on a ceasefire in Gaza nearly 600,000 which accurately reflects the scale of suffering IMO
"Genocide". You and you're ilk are devaluing this word. The Holocaust was a genocide, what happened in Rwanda was a genocide, Armenians suffered a genocide. What is happening in Gaza is retaliation for a terrorist attack by the government of Gaza. If you want Israel to stop then go and ask Hamas to give the hostages back.
Hard to believe you almost never see anyone in Britain say free the hostages , lay down your arms, send out hte murderers from 7th October , etc and then talk about peace. Bizarre.
I would suggest that, or some variation of it, is the standard middling position of many, especially older, political centrists in the UK - the sort that vote, don't demonstrate, expect our centrist politicians to do their job, and have no quarrel with good people on all sides.
They have a special dislike of seeing children and babies murdered by barbarians; many of them cried at telly coverage of young mothers and their babies/children going into exile from Ukraine leaving their menfolk behind and have cried again recently on 7 October and after, and find it so unthinkable they don't want to talk about it.
Hardest to talk about for decent people is the dilemma facing Israel whose policies involve also killing children and babies in their beds. Most don't think Israelis are also barbarians; every effort is under way to change this perspective.
The Israeli response to Oct 7th is going to wreak such appalling 'collateral damage' on Gaza and its population that it will strain the resolve of all but their most hardline supporters in the west. That's my sense of where this is going, PR wise.
That's what happens in war. 🤷♂️
How much collateral damage happened in Basra when we were bombing ISIS?
Or in Dresden when we were bombing the Nazis?
Hopefully Israel continues to stick to the rules of proportionality, which it has done so far, but it must seek to eliminate Hamas as a threat, it is an existential conflict. Once Hamas are eliminated, hopefully then this war can end as WWII did with an unconditional surrender and not a ceasefire but a complete and immediate peace treaty.
You are using Dresden as an example of what to do? You know Churchill bollocked Harris for Dresden and Potsdam and hated that we had done it? No sensible person thinks Dresden was right, when applying an ounce of hindsight (or just “sight” in Churchill’s case - “are we beasts?”)
Raaqa and Mosul would be better comparators. Our side was not aiming to kill civilians, but thousands were still killed Orr injured by the bombing.
But, there was no other way to achieve victory.
Yes. Also Falujah (three times). Very occasionally you have to assault a dense urban area, but doing so is horrible. No matter how careful you are (and I broadly think the Israelis try) you look horrible from outside the Ops room.
Civilian casualties in Fallujah were remarkably light: 600 in Battle 1, 800 in Battle 2.
I don’t know where you got that from but it sounds like combatants to me.
It comes across as a very plausible accusation. There might be quibbling over how it came about, questions over the precise expression, but the sentiment being intimated?
I've noticed some quite combative statements from Jake Berry recently regarding Sunak/Hunt and their lack of conservative policies - he is of course one of the leaders of the 'New Conservatives' which I guess would best be described as the red wall/low immigration caucus within the Tory Party, and is a prominent signatory to the tax pledge.
Consider his CV: Minister of State: 2017-2020 Party Chairman: September-October 2022
One of the problems Johnson, Truss and Sunak had was their lack of experience near the top. However sound their instincts, they hadn't had the time at the crease to score confidently. It's one of the reasons Starmer still fumbles from time to time, and Leader of the Opposition is a much less exposed role.
If Jake Berry is the best the New Conservatives can come up with, they might as well not bother.
I'm not convinced the lack of experience was behind it. How much time should be had at the top?
Starmer has not been an MP for very long - if he becomes PM he'll have been the quickest from becoming an MP to becoming PM apart from Sunak himself - but has had 'top' Shadow portfolios for almost all that time, which is as much experience as anyone in opposition can have.
Truss had been an MP for only 12 years, but 8 of those had been as a Cabinet Minister (or 'attends cabinet' depending on how Chief Secretary of the Treasury was counted at the time), which is quite a lot of experience at the top for a modern political career. She had experience of multiple roles and departments, and serving under different PMs, showing flexibility.
Boris had less time at the top, within parliament at least, than Sunak, Truss, or Starmer, but I don't think lack of such experience was what brought him down.
Boris had been London Mayor. I’d say that’s equivalent to a middle-high ranking Cabinet Post.
The most hopeful I can be in the present situation is that if Gaza is freed of Hamas control, maybe, just maybe there is the possibility for a seed towards eventual peace to start growing.
Snip...
Obviously I'm not an expert, but I think that this pretty much never happens in this sort of situation, that an extreme group is replaced by a more moderate group.
What has sometimes happens is that an extreme group has become more moderate after concluding that their maximalist strategy has failed and that they need to pursue compromise.
Consequently, I think that the military defeat of Hamas is a necessary precondition for a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians. You'd also need to see a change in the Israeli leadership, and that is something I fervently hope for, and it's easier in a democracy for extremists to be replaced by moderates.
It is difficult to see how Netanyahu survives this, although I suspect his current actions are as much an attempt to shore up his position as they are blind lashing out.
He sold himself as the strong man who could protect Israel.
He sold himself as the man who could solve politics.
He sold himself as the man who would never waver in his commitment to the settlers.
And now, he's seen Israel suffer its worst disaster in over fifty years, he's had to take a load of people he was badmouthing into his government (and I still think they were fools to accept) and as a result his commitment to the settler parties is weakened.
The fact he is a long standing crook and sex pest with a penchant for interfering with the judiciary will hopefully be what secures his exit after he's gone through it, but ultimately it's his quite astonishing failure that should see him fired.
I’m reminded in this war that the polities of the West and Israel have different approaches to hearts and minds. It catches us by surprise every time.
Put simply, most Western governments and populations put great store by being liked. They frequently do bad things in foreign policy but they try to stay on the good side of international public opinion. Even Russia, in its warped way, makes a modicum of effort on that score.
Israel just doesn’t seem to care about international opinion. It says it as it is, and that can be very uncomfortable during wars, because what it is saying is brutal. It’s a Millwall attitude. My experience with Israeli clients is somewhat similar: extremely direct and borderline rude, especially with each other. But truthful as a result.
You could say Israel lacks a strategy for hearts and minds, or you could say Western countries are just hypocritical. Probably right in either case.
I have had the same experience professionally.
I think it is because Jews have tried being nice, integrating, being good citizens, contributing to the many different countries where they have lived. And what has it got them: prejudice, ghettos and ultimately murder - in their millions - genocide, real genocide not the pretendy version shouted by ignorant bigoted people. So now Jews are going to do what it takes to live and forget about being nice because being nice got them precisely nowhere - or, rather, it got them into cattle trucks and gas chambers and pits of dead bodies.
Anyway I thought that a petition asking us to tell British citizens here that they are not alone and are valued citizens, especially given the concerns expressed by quite a few that they do feel alone and vulnerable would be uncontroversial. Apparently not - at least to one PB'er. People surprising on the downside should not be a shock to me. But it is. I expect better. Silly me.
The biggest fallacy I see get quoted here is because Hamas wants war, Israel shouldn't fight one.
What should Israel do instead? Rollover and play dead? Let Hamas strike them and just turn the other cheek and say "come, take more hostages, rape more women, kill more babies, be our guest"?
When the other party wants war, then sometimes the only thing to do is give them what they want - and defeat them until they don't want it anymore.
The Jihadis are no better than Nazi Germany. They lack its power, but they have the same authoritarian rule in Gaza, anyone who speaks against them would get murdered, they've destroyed any nascent democracy there, and if they had the chance they would genocidally murder every single Jew "from the river to the sea" as they openly say. Their writings are as horrific and evil and as open as Mein Kampf.
When the Nazis wanted war, we didn't turn around and say "well you want war, so we're not playing your game, no war for you". We eventually said "if there needs to be war, there will be war, and we will beat you".
That is exactly the situation Israel faces, for its survival, and they need to fight the war and fight it to win.
Any civilians caught in the crossfire its a tragedy, but their concerns should be as secondary to Israel as German civilians concerns were to us in WWII. In war you have to put your own people first - if only Hamas felt the same, the Palestinians would not be in the situation they're in.
You are a psychopath.
Wanting fascists defeated and democracies to be able to live in peace is not psychopathic.
Your moral compass is broken.
You literally called for ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity. If any moral compasses are broken, it’s yours.
Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.
But it should be bloodless and voluntary I said and was proposed as a lesser evil than genocide.
The movement of people is a far lesser crime than the murder of them.
To go full Godwin, I am struck by this juxtaposition:
Hitler, 22 August 1939, “Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?”, or "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Bart, 29 October 2023, “Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.”
Yes, Hitler and Hamas support annihilation. Murder, killing them.
I do not. I am OK with voluntary emigration, I always have been and always will be.
Ah yes, voluntary. A word that had done a lot of the heavy lifting, historically.
What’s the ping of becoming what you hate? Especially when it doesn’t even get you a win?
My proposal, which @bondegezou has called "ethnic cleansing" was that an agreement should be reached at the cost of possibly tens of billions of dollars that anyone who wants to move away from the conflict zone can do so and be given a considerable sum of money to help them start a new life somewhere else. Let any Gazan who wants to move away from there do so, and give them something like $5000 or $10000 to start them off a new life in a new home.
And give aid to the country taking the migrants as well.
Bondegezou calls it ethnic cleansing, I call it migration or refuge, and migration or refuge happens all over the planet. There are Ukrainian refugees all around us in this country, many of whom will never go back to Ukraine.
I said that I would oppose any violence to compel people to move. I want people to have a choice, if they want to, do so - and it will make them safer than remaining caught in the crossfires of a war. If any choose not to take up that choice, they should be able to remain where they are.
There should be absolutely no excuse for violence deliberately targeting civilians (as opposed to human shields getting killed in proportionate warfare).
You have, upthread, referred to your own proposal as ethnic cleansing, so I’m unclear why you’re now complaining about me doing so.
Your proposal, when you discussed it before, was with the explicit aim of removing all Palestinians from Gaza, as you argued that is the only way to achieve peace. I believe we should support refugees fleeing a war zone and we should work for an end result where they can move back. You do not.
No, I didn't, I responded to you calling it. I would not call it ethnic cleansing.
Sometimes I think refugees should be able to move back, sometimes its not always feasible, in which case they should be supported to be able to start a new life elsewhere.
We have many in this country who have either arrived as refugees, or are the children/grandchildren etc of those who arrived as refugees. Should they all be compelled either morally or legally to "return to where they came from"?
I abhor that kind of anti-migrant mentality.
You’re twisting my words. I didn’t say anything about compelling anyone to return to where they came from. I said “we should work for an end result where they can move back”.
Do you think we should work for an end result where refugees from a war can move back? You do in the case of Ukraine. You previously indicated you did not in the case of Gaza.
It depends. There is no one size fits all solution.
If Russians leave Crimea when Ukraine liberates it, then afterwards should those Russians be invited back? No, I don't think so.
I think when a defensive, free nation is invaded and wins the war it should be free to determine what suits itself best. That may involve taking back some but not all of the refugees from the conflict, in particular those who had supported the other side may not be welcome back.
That's realpolitik not a war crime and its happened in every major war ever.
The amount of contumely Roger gets, even from the performatively judicious Cyclefree, is ridiculous.
it is worth noting that several posters are advocating the essential annihilation of a people, and Roger is not one of them.
I think Roger’s views are similar to those of Mahatma Gandhi. Anti-semitism is a very great evil, but it is the duty of Jews to show that they are better than their enemies, by not retaliating.
I think it unsurprising that such a viewpoint attracts criticism.
I've noticed some quite combative statements from Jake Berry recently regarding Sunak/Hunt and their lack of conservative policies - he is of course one of the leaders of the 'New Conservatives' which I guess would best be described as the red wall/low immigration caucus within the Tory Party, and is a prominent signatory to the tax pledge.
Consider his CV: Minister of State: 2017-2020 Party Chairman: September-October 2022
One of the problems Johnson, Truss and Sunak had was their lack of experience near the top. However sound their instincts, they hadn't had the time at the crease to score confidently. It's one of the reasons Starmer still fumbles from time to time, and Leader of the Opposition is a much less exposed role.
If Jake Berry is the best the New Conservatives can come up with, they might as well not bother.
I'm not convinced the lack of experience was behind it. How much time should be had at the top?
Starmer has not been an MP for very long - if he becomes PM he'll have been the quickest from becoming an MP to becoming PM apart from Sunak himself - but has had 'top' Shadow portfolios for almost all that time, which is as much experience as anyone in opposition can have.
Truss had been an MP for only 12 years, but 8 of those had been as a Cabinet Minister (or 'attends cabinet' depending on how Chief Secretary of the Treasury was counted at the time), which is quite a lot of experience at the top for a modern political career. She had experience of multiple roles and departments, and serving under different PMs, showing flexibility.
Boris had less time at the top, within parliament at least, than Sunak, Truss, or Starmer, but I don't think lack of such experience was what brought him down.
Boris had been London Mayor. I’d say that’s equivalent to a middle-high ranking Cabinet Post.
I wouldn't, but even if it was in responsibility I think the question is about parliamentary experience, not merely holding a position of responsibility, but knowing the people and processes of parliament specifically. That's why shadow ministers count to some degree, despite having no ministerial responsibility to act as an equivalent. The idea being Boris was a figure of note and political experience, but being Mayor is a bit on the outside looking in, or on the sides, not gaining that sense of the parliamentary factions and methods which, it is suppsoed, a PM might need.
But as I said I don't think that lack was what did for Boris anyway.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
We need a ban on these pathetic, “how bad is it that some guy on the internet filmed something and oh my god anti semitism (or Islamophobia) is rife isn’t it and out of control on the streets of Britain and what is Keir Starmer or Rishi Patel doing about it oh my god” posts.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
The Jewish man and his companions were not attacked, or even abused in what seemed fairly good-natured exchanges with marchers. This is pretty low-rent antisemitism. As for provocative, it is surely police SOP to keep rival groups away from each other, as seen every Saturday outside football grounds.
The other thread has been closed, which in the absence of any new news might have been the wrong choice but here we are.
I blame the end of daylight saving time, and call for an immediate judge led inquiry into keeping BST for the whole year to avoid confusing PB's editors.
(Is that the right way to do it?)
On topic - badly. Which is what Hamas wants and why Netanyahu is being even more foolish than usual.
I think Hamas would actually prefer Gaza as a wasteland occupied by Israel to a two state solution. It allows them to extend their grievance and get loads more lovely cash from their backers to maintain their personally lavish lifestyles (and kill Jews).
And unfortunately, so would Likud, who naively believe it would secure Israel's future as a Jewish state encompassing the whole of Mandatory Palestine.
The Palestinian people wouldn't, according to such information as we have, but nobody involved seems to care about them (including these idiot protestors in the West).
A hat tip to @Cyclefree for this article by Simon Sebag Montefiore:
There is one mistake in it. The number of Jews who are non-white (insofar as that label has any meaning) is around 3-3.5 million not 5 million. I think he may have added in the Muslim and Christian populations to get to 5 million but it is a little misleading.
Otherwise, it's a good article and well worth reading.
Now you've finished Sebag Montefiore's well known Zionist pleadings you might enjoy this which gives a slightly more interesting and relevant picture of things as they really are. A review by Jonathan Friedland
The other thread has been closed, which in the absence of any new news might have been the wrong choice but here we are.
I blame the end of daylight saving time, and call for an immediate judge led inquiry into keeping BST for the whole year to avoid confusing PB's editors.
(Is that the right way to do it?)
On topic - badly. Which is what Hamas wants and why Netanyahu is being even more foolish than usual.
I think Hamas would actually prefer Gaza as a wasteland occupied by Israel to a two state solution. It allows them to extend their grievance and get loads more lovely cash from their backers to maintain their personally lavish lifestyles (and kill Jews).
And unfortunately, so would Likud, who naively believe it would secure Israel's future as a Jewish state encompassing the whole of Mandatory Palestine.
The Palestinian people wouldn't, according to such information as we have, but nobody involved seems to care about them (including these idiot protestors in the West).
A hat tip to @Cyclefree for this article by Simon Sebag Montefiore:
There is one mistake in it. The number of Jews who are non-white (insofar as that label has any meaning) is around 3-3.5 million not 5 million. I think he may have added in the Muslim and Christian populations to get to 5 million but it is a little misleading.
Otherwise, it's a good article and well worth reading.
Now you've finished Sebag Montefiore's well known Zionist pleadings you might enjoy this which gives a slightly more interesting and relevant picture of things as they really are. A review by Jonathan Friedland
Reposting this from the other day as it was addressed to you but you may not have been on -
"Have you ever read Benevolence and Betrayal by Alexander Stille? You should. It's about 5 Italian Jewish families under fascism. One of them is led by a man who supports Mussolini, thinks fascism a good thing, ingratiates himself with the regime and thinks he will be safe. He is one of the good pro-Italy-under-Mussolini Jews. When I read your comments I think of that man. Too late he realises that all his sucking up and ingratiation and support for the regime is of no consequence. The only thing that matters about him is that he is a Jew - nothing else - not his support or his money or his opinions. Too late he tries to escape. He does not and is murdered.
That, Roger, is how Hamas view you. They don't care about your dislike of Netanyahu or that you call Israel a one-eyed country or that you support the Palestinian cause. They didn't care about the elderly journalist who wrote about the Sabra and Chatila massacres and Israel's shameful role in them. They still took him hostage. They didn't care about the woman who had been helping Palestinians in Gaza get medical treatment. They took her hostage too. They didn't care about the Israeli IT CEO who was building businesses inside Gaza to give good jobs to Gazans. They still killed his 15 year old daughter. They kill Jews because they are Jews - because of who they are not because of their opinions or what they have done or who they vote for. That is what their Charter says and it is what they have done and will continue doing until they are stopped. You are profoundly naive if you think otherwise."
I read it but found nothing in it relatable to me. I worked in Beirut for the first time in 1996 just as the civil war was coming to an end. P&G had chosen five directors world-wide who could shoot their Pantene ads and I was one. They split the World into six I think and asked me if I'd do one with Miss Lebanon in Beirut. Though I wasn't keen on working for them Beirut sounded interesting.
Over the two weeks of that first shoot I got to really like the Lebanese. They were bright hospitable and had an inate intelligence that was unusual in a business which was largely visual. We talked endlessly about the politics of the area as most Lebanese do. I was told how the war started. The Palestinians put up roadblocks...... In retaliation a Christan factions blew up a schoolbus ......and so it began. Twenty years of it. .....
On my first ride from the airport it looked like Gaza does now. I worked there often for the next several years and met people from every faction. I met two of Terry Waite's kidnappers I saw the Holiday Inn where the Phalangists jumped suicidally to their death.....and so on and so on. I won their top advertising ward for 'Environment' and became their favourite director and could have worked non stop there if I'd wanted to. We post- produced in London though clients with Palestinian passports couldn't get a visa. We couldn't process locally because only Israel had the facilities and that was forbidden. I needed a second passport.
I was in the Marriott Hotel by the sea when we were told to evacuate. Israel had decided to blow up a nearby power station. No one knew why. Ten power station workers were killed. I saw little little like this but lots of optimism. Israel was a fear because as they saw it they had the power and no boundaries. So was Hesbollah though it isn't seen as a terrorist organisation there as much as a political one. They run schools and hositals and to many are the good guys
So cyclefree I really do know the area and more importantly I feel I know the people. Generalising is never accurate though the Arabs I have met show a much greater humility than their Israeli counterparts which is why I fear for the citizens of Gaza more than I fear for the Israelis and much more than I fear for British Jews. a great deal of whom share my views.
All very interesting. But you don't answer my point - which is how Hamas sees you.
People who want to kill Jews do so because they are Jews and don't give a fig for your knowledge, understanding, life history or experiences. That is the point you keep missing.
One source of amusement in the London student scene of the 90s, was the ultra left trying to cosy up to the Islamic Fundamentalists who were spiralling into violence.
The Tankies were quite upset that they were seen as just more Westerners to be hated. “But we hate the West, also!?????!!!”
IN news closer to home, protesters set up camp against destruction of RAF Scampton (of Dambusters and 617 Sqn fame, inter alia), bitterly opposing illegal behaviour by the Home Office.
Bringing back memories of Greenham Common and similar camps.
It comes across as a very plausible accusation. There might be quibbling over how it came about, questions over the precise expression, but the sentiment being intimated?
Private Eye has been expressing considerable concern over ‘goings-on” in clear sight of Ben Houchen for a while now.
The most hopeful I can be in the present situation is that if Gaza is freed of Hamas control, maybe, just maybe there is the possibility for a seed towards eventual peace to start growing.
Snip...
Obviously I'm not an expert, but I think that this pretty much never happens in this sort of situation, that an extreme group is replaced by a more moderate group.
What has sometimes happens is that an extreme group has become more moderate after concluding that their maximalist strategy has failed and that they need to pursue compromise.
Consequently, I think that the military defeat of Hamas is a necessary precondition for a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians. You'd also need to see a change in the Israeli leadership, and that is something I fervently hope for, and it's easier in a democracy for extremists to be replaced by moderates.
It is difficult to see how Netanyahu survives this, although I suspect his current actions are as much an attempt to shore up his position as they are blind lashing out.
He sold himself as the strong man who could protect Israel.
He sold himself as the man who could solve politics.
He sold himself as the man who would never waver in his commitment to the settlers.
And now, he's seen Israel suffer its worst disaster in over fifty years, he's had to take a load of people he was badmouthing into his government (and I still think they were fools to accept) and as a result his commitment to the settler parties is weakened.
The fact he is a long standing crook and sex pest with a penchant for interfering with the judiciary will hopefully be what secures his exit after he's gone through it, but ultimately it's his quite astonishing failure that should see him fired.
People will look past a myriad of sins if they think you are strong and effective. He might be able to launch retribution effectively, but his personal flaws are harder to overlook in a crisis.
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
It's not a black and white difference, but I think it speaks volumes that you have to reach back to 2014 for a counterexample, compared to the contemporary celebrations of the October 7th massacres.
There aren’t, contrary to Bart’s worldview, goodies and baddies here. We should never condemn, nor punish, a people for the actions of some. There are Palestinians and Jewish Israelis who want peace, and others who favour genocide. We are divorced from events. The least we can do is to not support the latter. I condemn the pro-Hamas protests; I condemn the armchair generals here (not you) who want to remove all Palestinians from Gaza.
Hear hear. You, and @DavidL and others, are refreshingly sane on this topic.
The targeting of genuine peace groups is reminiscent of Northern Ireland - apparently people who drink tea with other people need a bullet more than the other sides Men Of Violence. And for the same reason. Such outreach undermines the hate that keeps the show on the road.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
The Jewish man and his companions were not attacked, or even abused in what seemed fairly good-natured exchanges with marchers. This is pretty low-rent antisemitism. As for provocative, it is surely police SOP to keep rival groups away from each other, as seen every Saturday outside football grounds.
Would the police have reacted the same way to, for example, a black or Asian man walking close to an EDL march, and being told by the marchers that everyone hates him just for being him? Or is “low-rent” racism now okay if the target is Jewish?
The most hopeful I can be in the present situation is that if Gaza is freed of Hamas control, maybe, just maybe there is the possibility for a seed towards eventual peace to start growing.
Snip...
Obviously I'm not an expert, but I think that this pretty much never happens in this sort of situation, that an extreme group is replaced by a more moderate group.
What has sometimes happens is that an extreme group has become more moderate after concluding that their maximalist strategy has failed and that they need to pursue compromise.
Consequently, I think that the military defeat of Hamas is a necessary precondition for a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians. You'd also need to see a change in the Israeli leadership, and that is something I fervently hope for, and it's easier in a democracy for extremists to be replaced by moderates.
It is difficult to see how Netanyahu survives this, although I suspect his current actions are as much an attempt to shore up his position as they are blind lashing out.
He sold himself as the strong man who could protect Israel.
He sold himself as the man who could solve politics.
He sold himself as the man who would never waver in his commitment to the settlers.
And now, he's seen Israel suffer its worst disaster in over fifty years, he's had to take a load of people he was badmouthing into his government (and I still think they were fools to accept) and as a result his commitment to the settler parties is weakened.
The fact he is a long standing crook and sex pest with a penchant for interfering with the judiciary will hopefully be what secures his exit after he's gone through it, but ultimately it's his quite astonishing failure that should see him fired.
Netanyahu, and twenty-odd years of increasingly right wing (some now avowedly fascist, per the post upthread) party rule has really fucked Israel.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
The Jewish man and his companions were not attacked, or even abused in what seemed fairly good-natured exchanges with marchers. This is pretty low-rent antisemitism. As for provocative, it is surely police SOP to keep rival groups away from each other, as seen every Saturday outside football grounds.
Would the police have reacted the same way to, for example, a black or Asian man walking close to an EDL march, and being told by the marchers that everyone hates him just for being him?
Unfortunate example because with the Met's record on race the answer is, 'quite probably.'
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
The Jewish man and his companions were not attacked, or even abused in what seemed fairly good-natured exchanges with marchers. This is pretty low-rent antisemitism. As for provocative, it is surely police SOP to keep rival groups away from each other, as seen every Saturday outside football grounds.
Would the police have reacted the same way to, for example, a black man walking close to an EDL march, and being told by the marchers that everyone hates him just for being him?
Yep, Jews don't count. That's what the message is here.
Also, on the subject of football, I did comment that Man Utd were not playing Liverpool in the FA Cup Final this year, but that was no mitigation for the idiot in that 97 not enough shirt.
The biggest fallacy I see get quoted here is because Hamas wants war, Israel shouldn't fight one.
What should Israel do instead? Rollover and play dead? Let Hamas strike them and just turn the other cheek and say "come, take more hostages, rape more women, kill more babies, be our guest"?
When the other party wants war, then sometimes the only thing to do is give them what they want - and defeat them until they don't want it anymore.
The Jihadis are no better than Nazi Germany. They lack its power, but they have the same authoritarian rule in Gaza, anyone who speaks against them would get murdered, they've destroyed any nascent democracy there, and if they had the chance they would genocidally murder every single Jew "from the river to the sea" as they openly say. Their writings are as horrific and evil and as open as Mein Kampf.
When the Nazis wanted war, we didn't turn around and say "well you want war, so we're not playing your game, no war for you". We eventually said "if there needs to be war, there will be war, and we will beat you".
That is exactly the situation Israel faces, for its survival, and they need to fight the war and fight it to win.
Any civilians caught in the crossfire its a tragedy, but their concerns should be as secondary to Israel as German civilians concerns were to us in WWII. In war you have to put your own people first - if only Hamas felt the same, the Palestinians would not be in the situation they're in.
You are a psychopath.
Wanting fascists defeated and democracies to be able to live in peace is not psychopathic.
Your moral compass is broken.
You literally called for ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity. If any moral compasses are broken, it’s yours.
Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.
But it should be bloodless and voluntary I said and was proposed as a lesser evil than genocide.
The movement of people is a far lesser crime than the murder of them.
To go full Godwin, I am struck by this juxtaposition:
Hitler, 22 August 1939, “Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?”, or "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Bart, 29 October 2023, “Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly across the planet, it happened earlier this year with Azerbaijan without more than a murmur.”
Yes, Hitler and Hamas support annihilation. Murder, killing them.
I do not. I am OK with voluntary emigration, I always have been and always will be.
Ah yes, voluntary. A word that had done a lot of the heavy lifting, historically.
What’s the ping of becoming what you hate? Especially when it doesn’t even get you a win?
My proposal, which @bondegezou has called "ethnic cleansing" was that an agreement should be reached at the cost of possibly tens of billions of dollars that anyone who wants to move away from the conflict zone can do so and be given a considerable sum of money to help them start a new life somewhere else. Let any Gazan who wants to move away from there do so, and give them something like $5000 or $10000 to start them off a new life in a new home.
And give aid to the country taking the migrants as well.
Bondegezou calls it ethnic cleansing, I call it migration or refuge, and migration or refuge happens all over the planet. There are Ukrainian refugees all around us in this country, many of whom will never go back to Ukraine.
I said that I would oppose any violence to compel people to move. I want people to have a choice, if they want to, do so - and it will make them safer than remaining caught in the crossfires of a war. If any choose not to take up that choice, they should be able to remain where they are.
There should be absolutely no excuse for violence deliberately targeting civilians (as opposed to human shields getting killed in proportionate warfare).
You have, upthread, referred to your own proposal as ethnic cleansing, so I’m unclear why you’re now complaining about me doing so.
Your proposal, when you discussed it before, was with the explicit aim of removing all Palestinians from Gaza, as you argued that is the only way to achieve peace. I believe we should support refugees fleeing a war zone and we should work for an end result where they can move back. You do not.
No, I didn't, I responded to you calling it. I would not call it ethnic cleansing.
Sometimes I think refugees should be able to move back, sometimes its not always feasible, in which case they should be supported to be able to start a new life elsewhere.
We have many in this country who have either arrived as refugees, or are the children/grandchildren etc of those who arrived as refugees. Should they all be compelled either morally or legally to "return to where they came from"?
I abhor that kind of anti-migrant mentality.
You’re twisting my words. I didn’t say anything about compelling anyone to return to where they came from. I said “we should work for an end result where they can move back”.
Do you think we should work for an end result where refugees from a war can move back? You do in the case of Ukraine. You previously indicated you did not in the case of Gaza.
It depends. There is no one size fits all solution.
If Russians leave Crimea when Ukraine liberates it, then afterwards should those Russians be invited back? No, I don't think so.
I think when a defensive, free nation is invaded and wins the war it should be free to determine what suits itself best. That may involve taking back some but not all of the refugees from the conflict, in particular those who had supported the other side may not be welcome back.
That's realpolitik not a war crime and its happened in every major war ever.
Your position is contrary to international law. What you describe is not something that has happened in every major war ever.
You are dodging the question of whether you still believe the best solution is for all Palestinians to leave Gaza. I hope you have changed your mind.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
The Jewish man and his companions were not attacked, or even abused in what seemed fairly good-natured exchanges with marchers. This is pretty low-rent antisemitism. As for provocative, it is surely police SOP to keep rival groups away from each other, as seen every Saturday outside football grounds.
Even if so (and I don't really buy it), they could perhaps have said "For your own safety I'd advise you to step away from this group" rather than accuse him of provocation by mere existence?
The first is advice to separate the groups, the other ascribes blame.
The other thread has been closed, which in the absence of any new news might have been the wrong choice but here we are.
I blame the end of daylight saving time, and call for an immediate judge led inquiry into keeping BST for the whole year to avoid confusing PB's editors.
(Is that the right way to do it?)
On topic - badly. Which is what Hamas wants and why Netanyahu is being even more foolish than usual.
I think Hamas would actually prefer Gaza as a wasteland occupied by Israel to a two state solution. It allows them to extend their grievance and get loads more lovely cash from their backers to maintain their personally lavish lifestyles (and kill Jews).
And unfortunately, so would Likud, who naively believe it would secure Israel's future as a Jewish state encompassing the whole of Mandatory Palestine.
The Palestinian people wouldn't, according to such information as we have, but nobody involved seems to care about them (including these idiot protestors in the West).
A hat tip to @Cyclefree for this article by Simon Sebag Montefiore:
There is one mistake in it. The number of Jews who are non-white (insofar as that label has any meaning) is around 3-3.5 million not 5 million. I think he may have added in the Muslim and Christian populations to get to 5 million but it is a little misleading.
Otherwise, it's a good article and well worth reading.
Now you've finished Sebag Montefiore's well known Zionist pleadings you might enjoy this which gives a slightly more interesting and relevant picture of things as they really are. A review by Jonathan Friedland
The other thread has been closed, which in the absence of any new news might have been the wrong choice but here we are.
I blame the end of daylight saving time, and call for an immediate judge led inquiry into keeping BST for the whole year to avoid confusing PB's editors.
(Is that the right way to do it?)
On topic - badly. Which is what Hamas wants and why Netanyahu is being even more foolish than usual.
I think Hamas would actually prefer Gaza as a wasteland occupied by Israel to a two state solution. It allows them to extend their grievance and get loads more lovely cash from their backers to maintain their personally lavish lifestyles (and kill Jews).
And unfortunately, so would Likud, who naively believe it would secure Israel's future as a Jewish state encompassing the whole of Mandatory Palestine.
The Palestinian people wouldn't, according to such information as we have, but nobody involved seems to care about them (including these idiot protestors in the West).
A hat tip to @Cyclefree for this article by Simon Sebag Montefiore:
There is one mistake in it. The number of Jews who are non-white (insofar as that label has any meaning) is around 3-3.5 million not 5 million. I think he may have added in the Muslim and Christian populations to get to 5 million but it is a little misleading.
Otherwise, it's a good article and well worth reading.
Now you've finished Sebag Montefiore's well known Zionist pleadings you might enjoy this which gives a slightly more interesting and relevant picture of things as they really are. A review by Jonathan Friedland
Reposting this from the other day as it was addressed to you but you may not have been on -
"Have you ever read Benevolence and Betrayal by Alexander Stille? You should. It's about 5 Italian Jewish families under fascism. One of them is led by a man who supports Mussolini, thinks fascism a good thing, ingratiates himself with the regime and thinks he will be safe. He is one of the good pro-Italy-under-Mussolini Jews. When I read your comments I think of that man. Too late he realises that all his sucking up and ingratiation and support for the regime is of no consequence. The only thing that matters about him is that he is a Jew - nothing else - not his support or his money or his opinions. Too late he tries to escape. He does not and is murdered.
That, Roger, is how Hamas view you. They don't care about your dislike of Netanyahu or that you call Israel a one-eyed country or that you support the Palestinian cause. They didn't care about the elderly journalist who wrote about the Sabra and Chatila massacres and Israel's shameful role in them. They still took him hostage. They didn't care about the woman who had been helping Palestinians in Gaza get medical treatment. They took her hostage too. They didn't care about the Israeli IT CEO who was building businesses inside Gaza to give good jobs to Gazans. They still killed his 15 year old daughter. They kill Jews because they are Jews - because of who they are not because of their opinions or what they have done or who they vote for. That is what their Charter says and it is what they have done and will continue doing until they are stopped. You are profoundly naive if you think otherwise."
I read it but found nothing in it relatable to me. I worked in Beirut for the first time in 1996 just as the civil war was coming to an end. P&G had chosen five directors world-wide who could shoot their Pantene ads and I was one. They split the World into six I think and asked me if I'd do one with Miss Lebanon in Beirut. Though I wasn't keen on working for them Beirut sounded interesting.
Over the two weeks of that first shoot I got to really like the Lebanese. They were bright hospitable and had an inate intelligence that was unusual in a business which was largely visual. We talked endlessly about the politics of the area as most Lebanese do. I was told how the war started. The Palestinians put up roadblocks...... In retaliation a Christan factions blew up a schoolbus ......and so it began. Twenty years of it. .....
On my first ride from the airport it looked like Gaza does now. I worked there often for the next several years and met people from every faction. I met two of Terry Waite's kidnappers I saw the Holiday Inn where the Phalangists jumped suicidally to their death.....and so on and so on. I won their top advertising ward for 'Environment' and became their favourite director and could have worked non stop there if I'd wanted to. We post- produced in London though clients with Palestinian passports couldn't get a visa. We couldn't process locally because only Israel had the facilities and that was forbidden. I needed a second passport.
I was in the Marriott Hotel by the sea when we were told to evacuate. Israel had decided to blow up a nearby power station. No one knew why. Ten power station workers were killed. I saw little little like this but lots of optimism. Israel was a fear because as they saw it they had the power and no boundaries. So was Hesbollah though it isn't seen as a terrorist organisation there as much as a political one. They run schools and hositals and to many are the good guys
So cyclefree I really do know the area and more importantly I feel I know the people. Generalising is never accurate though the Arabs I have met show a much greater humility than their Israeli counterparts which is why I fear for the citizens of Gaza more than I fear for the Israelis and much more than I fear for British Jews. a great deal of whom share my views.
All very interesting. But you don't answer my point - which is how Hamas sees you.
People who want to kill Jews do so because they are Jews and don't give a fig for your knowledge, understanding, life history or experiences. That is the point you keep missing.
One source of amusement in the London student scene of the 90s, was the ultra left trying to cosy up to the Islamic Fundamentalists who were spiralling into violence.
The Tankies were quite upset that they were seen as just more Westerners to be hated. “But we hate the West, also!?????!!!”
IN news closer to home, protesters set up camp against destruction of RAF Scampton (of Dambusters and 617 Sqn fame, inter alia), bitterly opposing illegal behaviour by the Home Office.
Bringing back memories of Greenham Common and similar camps.
Getting a bit of a vibe that setting up as Scampton as a centre for asylum seekers is seen as a particular insult to the memory of ar brave lads.
Hmm, this particular chap wanted to be a WOP/AG but no such luck: ended up in 617 Sqn as a ground crewman (and quite possibly survived the war as a result).
The difference between Israeli and Palestinian civilians deaths is that when Palestinian civilians are killed no-one goes out onto the streets to celebrate that fact as a victory, but when Israeli civilians are killed there are a lot of people willing to head out onto the streets to revel in the slaughter.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
It's not a black and white difference, but I think it speaks volumes that you have to reach back to 2014 for a counterexample, compared to the contemporary celebrations of the October 7th massacres.
There aren’t, contrary to Bart’s worldview, goodies and baddies here. We should never condemn, nor punish, a people for the actions of some. There are Palestinians and Jewish Israelis who want peace, and others who favour genocide. We are divorced from events. The least we can do is to not support the latter. I condemn the pro-Hamas protests; I condemn the armchair generals here (not you) who want to remove all Palestinians from Gaza.
Hear hear. You, and DavidL and others, are refreshingly sane on this topic.
"Refreshingly sane" is quite the descriptor. Like saying someone is "disturbingly mellow" or "outrageously reasonable".
The most hopeful I can be in the present situation is that if Gaza is freed of Hamas control, maybe, just maybe there is the possibility for a seed towards eventual peace to start growing.
Snip...
Obviously I'm not an expert, but I think that this pretty much never happens in this sort of situation, that an extreme group is replaced by a more moderate group.
What has sometimes happens is that an extreme group has become more moderate after concluding that their maximalist strategy has failed and that they need to pursue compromise.
Consequently, I think that the military defeat of Hamas is a necessary precondition for a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians. You'd also need to see a change in the Israeli leadership, and that is something I fervently hope for, and it's easier in a democracy for extremists to be replaced by moderates.
It is difficult to see how Netanyahu survives this, although I suspect his current actions are as much an attempt to shore up his position as they are blind lashing out.
He sold himself as the strong man who could protect Israel.
He sold himself as the man who could solve politics.
He sold himself as the man who would never waver in his commitment to the settlers.
And now, he's seen Israel suffer its worst disaster in over fifty years, he's had to take a load of people he was badmouthing into his government (and I still think they were fools to accept) and as a result his commitment to the settler parties is weakened.
The fact he is a long standing crook and sex pest with a penchant for interfering with the judiciary will hopefully be what secures his exit after he's gone through it, but ultimately it's his quite astonishing failure that should see him fired.
Netanyahu, and twenty-odd years of increasingly right wing (some now avowedly fascist, per the post upthread) party rule has really fucked Israel.
Not really.
Israel remains a free, democratic nation.
Netanyahu is a response to Palestinians from Arafat to Hamas rejecting peace, not a cause of it.
When Hamas took over Gaza, it wasn't from Netanyahu, it was after Sharon had withdrawn from Gaza as part of the Road Map to peace.
Palestinian authorities from Arafat rejecting Bill Clinton's attempts at peace, to Hamas rejecting the "Quad" (America, EU, Russia and UN) Road Map to peace etc have rejected every Israeli attempt at peace leading Israelis to turn in desperation and by only a slender margin to people like Netanyahu who say "well if they don't want peace, we need to look after ourselves". Which isn't entirely unreasonable.
If Hamas are destroyed, and if the Palestinian authorities (or any other authorities) take over then I expect democratic Israel to turn away from Netanyahu etc just as it has in the past.
PS its not been 20 years either. 20 years ago Israel was led by Sharon, who was trying to get peace. Sharon demolished all Israeli settlements in Gaza and withdrew from Gaza to try to further the cause of peace - and look what happened afterwards, which is why pro-settler parties for the West Bank have been more popular because disengagement from Gaza made the situation worse not better.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
The Jewish man and his companions were not attacked, or even abused in what seemed fairly good-natured exchanges with marchers. This is pretty low-rent antisemitism. As for provocative, it is surely police SOP to keep rival groups away from each other, as seen every Saturday outside football grounds.
Would the police have reacted the same way to, for example, a black or Asian man walking close to an EDL march, and being told by the marchers that everyone hates him just for being him?
If there was no camera present, possibly.
I think the state of the police is well summarised by it being presented as good news that they have been able to increase the number of sackings this year. But that it is still not enough.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
The Jewish man and his companions were not attacked, or even abused in what seemed fairly good-natured exchanges with marchers. This is pretty low-rent antisemitism. As for provocative, it is surely police SOP to keep rival groups away from each other, as seen every Saturday outside football grounds.
Would the police have reacted the same way to, for example, a black or Asian man walking close to an EDL march, and being told by the marchers that everyone hates him just for being him?
Unfortunate example because with the Met's record on race the answer is, 'quite probably.'
Good lord, what an old fashioned view.
Chief Superintendent Savage has got a 99.9% compliance with everyone in his division doing racial sensitivity courses and the associated multiple choice exams. He’s got several abstract Perspex awards in the custom made display case, in his office, to prove this, as well.
They would have arrested some of the EDL guys, because arresting racists meets a target.
Obviously they would have arrested the black man as well for looking at them funny, walking on the cracks in the pavement and wearing a loud shirt in a built up area.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
The Jewish man and his companions were not attacked, or even abused in what seemed fairly good-natured exchanges with marchers. This is pretty low-rent antisemitism. As for provocative, it is surely police SOP to keep rival groups away from each other, as seen every Saturday outside football grounds.
Even if so (and I don't really buy it), they could perhaps have said "For your own safety I'd advise you to step away from this group" rather than accuse him of provocation by mere existence?
The first is advice to separate the groups, the other ascribes blame.
Yours sounds worse imo. More sinister, more threatening.
The other thread has been closed, which in the absence of any new news might have been the wrong choice but here we are.
I blame the end of daylight saving time, and call for an immediate judge led inquiry into keeping BST for the whole year to avoid confusing PB's editors.
(Is that the right way to do it?)
On topic - badly. Which is what Hamas wants and why Netanyahu is being even more foolish than usual.
I think Hamas would actually prefer Gaza as a wasteland occupied by Israel to a two state solution. It allows them to extend their grievance and get loads more lovely cash from their backers to maintain their personally lavish lifestyles (and kill Jews).
And unfortunately, so would Likud, who naively believe it would secure Israel's future as a Jewish state encompassing the whole of Mandatory Palestine.
The Palestinian people wouldn't, according to such information as we have, but nobody involved seems to care about them (including these idiot protestors in the West).
A hat tip to @Cyclefree for this article by Simon Sebag Montefiore:
There is one mistake in it. The number of Jews who are non-white (insofar as that label has any meaning) is around 3-3.5 million not 5 million. I think he may have added in the Muslim and Christian populations to get to 5 million but it is a little misleading.
Otherwise, it's a good article and well worth reading.
Now you've finished Sebag Montefiore's well known Zionist pleadings you might enjoy this which gives a slightly more interesting and relevant picture of things as they really are. A review by Jonathan Friedland
The amount of contumely Roger gets, even from the performatively judicious Cyclefree, is ridiculous.
it is worth noting that several posters are advocating the essential annihilation of a people, and Roger is not one of them.
I have made precisely one comment addressed to @Roger - which because it was addressed to him out of politeness I repeated when he was on - and politely responded to his reply.
And you will also see that not only have I never advocated the annihilation of anyone, my first comments on this were to the effect that Netanyahu was the worst possible leader for Israel, that Israel should offer a comprehensive peace based on a Palestinian state after the defeat of Hamas and that I had grave doubts about the wisdom of an invasion of Gaza. My views on the substance of the matter are probably pretty closely aligned with @Roger. So please do not wrongly attribute "contumely" to me.
There is nothing I can do about what happens in the Middle East. Nor does anyone there care two hoots for my opinion. But I can do something - however small and insignificant - about how my Jewish friends, neighbours and family (because, yes, some of my family are Jewish) feel. Hence sharing the petition.
Don't know whether this video has got any mainstream media coverage(unlikely) but pretty shocking. A Jewish person tries to talk to talk to a Muslim protester who tells him 'Your magic doesn't work. The whole world hates you guys.' A police officer then tells the Jewish man that he has a right to be there but his presence is 'provocative.'
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
The Jewish man and his companions were not attacked, or even abused in what seemed fairly good-natured exchanges with marchers. This is pretty low-rent antisemitism. As for provocative, it is surely police SOP to keep rival groups away from each other, as seen every Saturday outside football grounds.
Even if so (and I don't really buy it), they could perhaps have said "For your own safety I'd advise you to step away from this group" rather than accuse him of provocation by mere existence?
The first is advice to separate the groups, the other ascribes blame.
Yours sounds worse imo. More sinister, more threatening.
Would depend on the tone it was said. Other options are available which avoid that connotation and do not cast blame on the individual.
The amount of contumely Roger gets, even from the performatively judicious Cyclefree, is ridiculous.
it is worth noting that several posters are advocating the essential annihilation of a people, and Roger is not one of them.
Roger gets insulting language thrown at him because, when it comes to women, his views are those of a dinosaur. He is the antithesis of the MeToo movement - and made worse by the fact he worked in that industry.
He may (or may not) be on the side of the angels when it comes to Palestine/Israel; he certainly is not when it comes to other issues closer to home.
I do find it interesting that there's been no real push back from Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia or Qatar to Israel's ground invasion and stepping up the campaign against Hamas.
It's almost as though the neighbouring countries are aligned with Israel and want Hamas eradicated too but would prefer not to have their fingerprints on it.
There's probably wider geopolitics at play. Iran is behind Hezbollah, and Iran and Qatar 'help' Hamas. If you're not on good terms with those countries, then you probably don't want Hamas to succeed. In particular, although it was supposed to be cooling down, the Iran-Saudi proxy conflict may well be playing a part. The latest chapter in a conflict between Arab and Persians that has been ongoing for centuries...
Yes. In a sense any discussion of rights and wrongs needs to start with an agreed date before which you decide not to go. In Rory Stewart's recent podcast (a tour de force BTW) he started as recently as 66-70AD. Even more recent dates are available. The Persiaon conquest of Jerusalem and The Islamic conquest of Jerusalem, both 7th century AD; 1453; 1918; 1939-45; 1948; 1967; 1973; 7th October 2023 and so on.
Personally I think all discussion should start from either 586BC, the destruction of the first temple not long after Josiah's reforms, or Joshua's invasion, 1400/1300BC??.
I usually consider this sort of problem in 'half-life per generation' so today's issues - 100%, 50 years old factors - 25% importance. Hence USA should accept and normalise relations with Cuba, Israel has a de-facto right to the West Bank, albeit bothsubject to the usual principles of full democracy and equal human rights for all inhabitants.
The amount of contumely Roger gets, even from the performatively judicious Cyclefree, is ridiculous.
it is worth noting that several posters are advocating the essential annihilation of a people, and Roger is not one of them.
Roger gets insulting language thrown at him because, when it comes to women, his views are those of a dinosaur. He is the antithesis of the MeToo movement - and made worse by the fact he worked in that industry.
He may (or may not) be on the side of the angels when it comes to Palestine/Israel; he certainly is not when it comes to other issues closer to home.
Roger just refuses to sign up to whatever the latest virtue-signalling memo is.
He’s like your nemesis in that respect. If you ever met him there’d be rupture in the space-time continuum.
The amount of contumely Roger gets, even from the performatively judicious Cyclefree, is ridiculous.
it is worth noting that several posters are advocating the essential annihilation of a people, and Roger is not one of them.
Roger gets insulting language thrown at him because, when it comes to women, his views are those of a dinosaur. He is the antithesis of the MeToo movement - and made worse by the fact he worked in that industry.
He may (or may not) be on the side of the angels when it comes to Palestine/Israel; he certainly is not when it comes to other issues closer to home.
Roger just refuses to sign up to whatever the latest virtue-signalling memo is.
He’s like your nemesis in that respect. If you ever met him there’d be rupture in the space-time continuum.
Actually Roger is generally all up for the various progressive causes. He just has a couple of… blind spots.
What happened on 7th October was unspeakably evil, utterly dehumanising both the victims and those who did it. Israel is entitled to vengeance, no one can deny that.
But the Secretary General of the UN was not wrong to say this evil did not happen in a vacuum. The way Palestinians have been treated by Israel since at least 1967, particularly in Gaza, is also dehumanising and provokes both desperation and hatred. If Israel wishes to live in peace it must allow the Palestinians to live peaceably, to have some skin in the game, the chance to progress, make money, acquire skills and provide for their children.
Whilst the anger, the revulsion and the contempt on the part of Israel is understandable they need to come to terms with this and find ways to facilitate it whilst rightly protecting their own security.
UN are a bunch of tossers, you don't hear them whining about all the other killing going on in Ukraine , Africa , etc , etc. Bunch of pigs swilling at an expensive trough and a total and utter waste of space.
The amount of contumely Roger gets, even from the performatively judicious Cyclefree, is ridiculous.
it is worth noting that several posters are advocating the essential annihilation of a people, and Roger is not one of them.
Roger gets insulting language thrown at him because, when it comes to women, his views are those of a dinosaur. He is the antithesis of the MeToo movement - and made worse by the fact he worked in that industry.
He may (or may not) be on the side of the angels when it comes to Palestine/Israel; he certainly is not when it comes to other issues closer to home.
Roger just refuses to sign up to whatever the latest virtue-signalling memo is.
He’s like your nemesis in that respect. If you ever met him there’d be rupture in the space-time continuum.
He said that women in the TV/film industry who did not want to get abused by the 'talent' should just go and be hairdressers. He repeated this many times.
That is not 'virtue-signalling'. It is wrong. Then Me-Too happened, and he was AFAICR against that as well.
If you want to support his views, feel free. I'll put you deeper into the 'sexist tosser' camp.
Comments
There is much talk about Israel having the right to defend itself (which it does). We now also need to be talking about the right of Gaza to stabilise and develop itself. The only way towards an end of this conflict (short of mass ethnic cleansing) is for Gaza to be able to operate as a stable polity rather than a failed, blockaded no-man’s land. If Hamas do fall, then the world has a chance, maybe a small chance, but a chance nevertheless, to back the development of a stable replacement government able to treat and trade and encourage growth and development. And the West, and Israel, and other Arab nations, have a responsibility to aid in that process. Of course the recent historical examples of regime change coming at the barrel of a gun - Iraq and Afghanistan - have not been happy ones. But we have to hope. If Gaza and Gazans are simply left to the mercy of a political vacuum and a devastated land and continued blockade, there will never be peace. The cycle will simply continue.
I wish someone would sponsor a match between the England 50-over XI and an England over-50 XI. The oldies might just be in with a chance on current form.
Your proposal, when you discussed it before, was with the explicit aim of removing all Palestinians from Gaza, as you argued that is the only way to achieve peace. I believe we should support refugees fleeing a war zone and we should work for an end result where they can move back. You do not.
That's why, on balance and somewhat reluctantly, I come down primarily on Israel's side of the conflict at the moment.
Or as I was told at a seminar in Tel Aviv, 'most Israelis want a country that's three things - Jewish, democratic and from the river to the sea. But you can only have any two of those.'
That said, the idea of getting these marginal countries interested in sport is a good one. See Afghanistan as a recent example.
Sometimes I think refugees should be able to move back, sometimes its not always feasible, in which case they should be supported to be able to start a new life elsewhere.
We have many in this country who have either arrived as refugees, or are the children/grandchildren etc of those who arrived as refugees. Should they all be compelled either morally or legally to "return to where they came from"?
I abhor that kind of anti-migrant mentality.
https://x.com/tendar/status/1718624002405482535?s=46
I’d expect things to accelerate from here.
What happens next after Israel creates “facts on the ground” and occupies part of the strip is the big question.
Now I note he is giving interviews about his son's autism. I don't doubt his sincerity, but it feels like there may be a leadership bid brewing? Anyone have any thoughts?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/28/former-tory-chair-jake-berry-six-year-old-son-autistic/#:~:text=Sir Jake Berry, the former,you were going to have”.
If Hamas disarmed, we would have peace, something approaching a two state solution.
If Israel disarmed, it would be very quickly pushed into the sea and their population the subject of genicide.
Do you think we should work for an end result where refugees from a war can move back? You do in the case of Ukraine. You previously indicated you did not in the case of Gaza.
I noticed in Istanbul airport yesterday the live news tickers covering the conflict were headlined “Israeli genocide in Gaza: latest”.
New coach. New captain. Start again.
It will only come when they are confident an Israel including the West Bank will have an unassailable Jewish majority. Partly through settlements expanding the Jewish population and partly through disillusioned Palestinians emigrating.
They may be getting close to that, as I've said before. But if they act too soon they will jeopardise it.
Making sure the Palestinians in Gaza could not be involved, one way or another, would expedite that.
You should have had more faith, you really should.
And whoever talked Stokes out of retirement needs to suffer the fate awaiting Amanda Spielman when a safeguarding officer gets hold of her.
Best-selling broadsheet newspaper over here - https://www.thenationalnews.com/
A 2 state solution is going to require the disarming of the likes of Hamas but also some very domestically unpopular clearances of settlers on the West Bank.
Hamas’s stated position (and one might have reasons to be sceptical of what they say) is to start with a Palestine in the 1967 borders.
This is not a football game where we have to take sides. We can recognise the complexities of the situation and stop acting as if a solution is as simple as writing a few paragraphs on a UK political betting site.
People who want to kill Jews do so because they are Jews and don't give a fig for your knowledge, understanding, life history or experiences. That is the point you keep missing.
Minister of State: 2017-2020
Party Chairman: September-October 2022
One of the problems Johnson, Truss and Sunak had was their lack of experience near the top. However sound their instincts, they hadn't had the time at the crease to score confidently. It's one of the reasons Starmer still fumbles from time to time, and Leader of the Opposition is a much less exposed role.
If Jake Berry is the best the New Conservatives can come up with, they might as well not bother.
Edit; Moeen Ali’s come in before him.
Bringing back memories of Greenham Common and similar camps.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12680881/Dambusters-RAF-Scampton-battle-airfield-2-000-asylum-seekers.html
Edit - I suppose it's in some ways that's analogous to Collins' position on the Irish Free State: 'it gives us the freedom to win freedom.' Stepping stones you can tread on one at a time being better than floundering in an unfordable river.
So there we have it. Merely by being on the streets, Jews are being provocative. Telling them their time is running out is just standard banter presumably.
https://twitter.com/israel_advocacy/status/1718572439402148066
The real digging was down to HMG, for the humongous drive-in-one-end-and-out-the-other bunkers. Massive things, you always knew when you were flying over GC en route to Southampton or wherever.
it is worth noting that several posters are advocating the essential annihilation of a people, and Roger is not one of them.
There aren’t, contrary to Bart’s worldview, goodies and baddies here. We should never condemn, nor punish, a people for the actions of some. There are Palestinians and Jewish Israelis who want peace, and others who favour genocide. We are divorced from events. The least we can do is to not support the latter. I condemn the pro-Hamas protests; I condemn the armchair generals here (not you) who want to remove all Palestinians from Gaza.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah
Ben Houchen strongly denies accusation that he threatened to withhold council funds unless planning requests were met
https://www.ft.com/content/f29d18c0-9ad1-4568-a569-00f89b1805ee
What has sometimes happens is that an extreme group has become more moderate after concluding that their maximalist strategy has failed and that they need to pursue compromise.
Consequently, I think that the military defeat of Hamas is a necessary precondition for a peace deal between Israel and Palestinians. You'd also need to see a change in the Israeli leadership, and that is something I fervently hope for, and it's easier in a democracy for extremists to be replaced by moderates.
You, and @DavidL and others, are refreshingly sane on this topic.
Starmer has not been an MP for very long - if he becomes PM he'll have been the quickest from becoming an MP to becoming PM apart from Sunak himself - but has had 'top' Shadow portfolios for almost all that time, which is as much experience as anyone in opposition can have.
Truss had been an MP for only 12 years, but 8 of those had been as a Cabinet Minister (or 'attends cabinet' depending on how Chief Secretary of the Treasury was counted at the time), which is quite a lot of experience at the top for a modern political career. She had experience of multiple roles and departments, and serving under different PMs, showing flexibility.
Boris had less time at the top, within parliament at least, than Sunak, Truss, or Starmer, but I don't think lack of such experience was what brought him down.
Either way, dropping bombs in dense urban environments is never pleasant.
If he become Leader of the Opposition, it would be great for Labour and terrible for the country.
He sold himself as the strong man who could protect Israel.
He sold himself as the man who could solve politics.
He sold himself as the man who would never waver in his commitment to the settlers.
And now, he's seen Israel suffer its worst disaster in over fifty years, he's had to take a load of people he was badmouthing into his government (and I still think they were fools to accept) and as a result his commitment to the settler parties is weakened.
The fact he is a long standing crook and sex pest with a penchant for interfering with the judiciary will hopefully be what secures his exit after he's gone through it, but ultimately it's his quite astonishing failure that should see him fired.
I think it is because Jews have tried being nice, integrating, being good citizens, contributing to the many different countries where they have lived. And what has it got them: prejudice, ghettos and ultimately murder - in their millions - genocide, real genocide not the pretendy version shouted by ignorant bigoted people. So now Jews are going to do what it takes to live and forget about being nice because being nice got them precisely nowhere - or, rather, it got them into cattle trucks and gas chambers and pits of dead bodies.
Anyway I thought that a petition asking us to tell British citizens here that they are not alone and are valued citizens, especially given the concerns expressed by quite a few that they do feel alone and vulnerable would be uncontroversial. Apparently not - at least to one PB'er. People surprising on the downside should not be a shock to me. But it is. I expect better. Silly me.
If Russians leave Crimea when Ukraine liberates it, then afterwards should those Russians be invited back? No, I don't think so.
I think when a defensive, free nation is invaded and wins the war it should be free to determine what suits itself best. That may involve taking back some but not all of the refugees from the conflict, in particular those who had supported the other side may not be welcome back.
That's realpolitik not a war crime and its happened in every major war ever.
I think it unsurprising that such a viewpoint attracts criticism.
But as I said I don't think that lack was what did for Boris anyway.
The Tankies were quite upset that they were seen as just more Westerners to be hated. “But we hate the West, also!?????!!!”
Getting a bit of a vibe that setting up as Scampton as a centre for asylum seekers is seen as a particular insult to the memory of ar brave lads.
Also, on the subject of football, I did comment that Man Utd were not playing Liverpool in the FA Cup Final this year, but that was no mitigation for the idiot in that 97 not enough shirt.
You are dodging the question of whether you still believe the best solution is for all Palestinians to leave Gaza. I hope you have changed your mind.
The first is advice to separate the groups, the other ascribes blame.
https://ibccdigitalarchive.lincoln.ac.uk/omeka/collections/document/27255
Israel remains a free, democratic nation.
Netanyahu is a response to Palestinians from Arafat to Hamas rejecting peace, not a cause of it.
When Hamas took over Gaza, it wasn't from Netanyahu, it was after Sharon had withdrawn from Gaza as part of the Road Map to peace.
Palestinian authorities from Arafat rejecting Bill Clinton's attempts at peace, to Hamas rejecting the "Quad" (America, EU, Russia and UN) Road Map to peace etc have rejected every Israeli attempt at peace leading Israelis to turn in desperation and by only a slender margin to people like Netanyahu who say "well if they don't want peace, we need to look after ourselves". Which isn't entirely unreasonable.
If Hamas are destroyed, and if the Palestinian authorities (or any other authorities) take over then I expect democratic Israel to turn away from Netanyahu etc just as it has in the past.
PS its not been 20 years either. 20 years ago Israel was led by Sharon, who was trying to get peace. Sharon demolished all Israeli settlements in Gaza and withdrew from Gaza to try to further the cause of peace - and look what happened afterwards, which is why pro-settler parties for the West Bank have been more popular because disengagement from Gaza made the situation worse not better.
I think the state of the police is well summarised by it being presented as good news that they have been able to increase the number of sackings this year. But that it is still not enough.
NEW THREAD
Chief Superintendent Savage has got a 99.9% compliance with everyone in his division doing racial sensitivity courses and the associated multiple choice exams. He’s got several abstract Perspex awards in the custom made display case, in his office, to prove this, as well.
They would have arrested some of the EDL guys, because arresting racists meets a target.
Obviously they would have arrested the black man as well for looking at them funny, walking on the cracks in the pavement and wearing a loud shirt in a built up area.
And you will also see that not only have I never advocated the annihilation of anyone, my first comments on this were to the effect that Netanyahu was the worst possible leader for Israel, that Israel should offer a comprehensive peace based on a Palestinian state after the defeat of Hamas and that I had grave doubts about the wisdom of an invasion of Gaza. My views on the substance of the matter are probably pretty closely aligned with @Roger. So please do not wrongly attribute "contumely" to me.
There is nothing I can do about what happens in the Middle East. Nor does anyone there care two hoots for my opinion. But I can do something - however small and insignificant - about how my Jewish friends, neighbours and family (because, yes, some of my family are Jewish) feel. Hence sharing the petition.
He may (or may not) be on the side of the angels when it comes to Palestine/Israel; he certainly is not when it comes to other issues closer to home.
He’s like your nemesis in that respect. If you ever met him there’d be rupture in the space-time continuum.
That is not 'virtue-signalling'. It is wrong. Then Me-Too happened, and he was AFAICR against that as well.
If you want to support his views, feel free. I'll put you deeper into the 'sexist tosser' camp.
To be fair, though, it is already. This is more pathetic than Cummings' excuses for breaking lockdown.