I don't agree with boring. However the obsessive focus on a country the size of Wales is odd.
Patrick Wintour, diplomatic editor of the Guardian, described it as the biggest foreign policy crisis for 20 years. Really? Admittedly there is concern about wider potential instability in the region but when you consider Syria, Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt, Afghanistan, Crimea and the Donbass. The full on Russia/Ukraine war. It's a ridiculous notion.
Russia/Ukr is a bigger crisis imho.
Some kind of victory for Putin means europe becomes v unsafe.
I don't agree with boring. However the obsessive focus on a country the size of Wales is odd.
Patrick Wintour, diplomatic editor of the Guardian, described it as the biggest foreign policy crisis for 20 years. Really? Admittedly there is concern about wider potential instability in the region but when you consider Syria, Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt, Afghanistan, Crimea and the Donbass. The full on Russia/Ukraine war. It's a ridiculous notion.
Russia/Ukr is a bigger crisis imho.
Some kind of victory for Putin means europe becomes v unsafe.
Absolutely, it's a ridiculous claim. Most heavily covered on social media perhaps. If anything it provides an opportunity for a longer term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Torsten Bell @TorstenBell · 1m 8.5% state pension rise. This plus benefit uprating means fiscal improvement must be very big - made difficult decisions go away
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
"but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective."
7th October was pretty effective.
But that is what makes it so shocking to most people and to Israel, right? October 7th was the anomaly, not the rule. And Hamas managed to kill 1200 people and kidnap a few hundred, plus break down some parts of the border fence and some barracks - whereas Israel has levelled entire sections of Gaza, killed more than ten times that, and displaced many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and is arguing to displace all 2 million people in Gaza).
That, again, is not to say what Hamas did was acceptable or not a significant act of violence - but that in comparison to what the state of Israel can do (and has done in the past) it is not really in the same league.
Try re-writing that post with September 11 instead of October 7, and then the consequences for Afghanistan instead of Gaza. Exactly the same logic, excluding the final bit about displacing all people in Gaza, which isn't true anyway.
Having written that, I have realised that I don't really know what point you're making anyway. Terrorism is fine as long as the perpetrators aren't very good at it?
I of course don't believe that terrorism is fine - but I do believe that it doesn't come out of nowhere. September 11th is in some ways a very good analogy - because I don't think "they hate us for our freedoms" is why 9/11 happened, and I don't think the response to 9/11 was morally (or even politically) good or positive.
The belief here seems to be that terrorism comes from an evil desire from evil people. That's just not shown in the research. Terrorism happens when non state actors have political aims that they think are impossible to happen peacefully through the state, whether those aims are good or bad. Most (not all) of the people who commit terrorism are young men who see no future for themselves and become radicalised. The people at the top have narratives that feed this sense of futility and point it towards an enemy (real or imagined). Terrorism is fuelled by grievance.
There is a reason Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" has gone viral in this moment (and it isn't because the young are massively homophobic or anti-Semitic). It's because parts of it lay out a rationale for 9/11 that many of them were never taught - that American intervention in the Middle East, that the history of Western Imperialism, was never resolved. You can agree or disagree with that as an argument, you can agree or disagree with whether you think it is sincere coming from a guy whose family got rich off of oil investment and relationships with American capital, but it is an argument beyond "they hate us because they're evil".
Now, going back to 9/11 - has the American response to it done any good in the world? Is the American political psyche any better because of it? Is the world any better? Is Afghanistan, now back under Taliban rule, better? Is Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, any better? Why did ISIS arise? How did the world benefit from millions of dead Iraqis and Afghanis? I would say every outcomes from those wars - from the securitisation of everything, the spikes in islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, the destruction of whole countries and peoples - was bad. That seems like a very apt comparison to the reaction Israel is having against the Palestinians due to the actions of Hamas.
For anyone on high incomes receiving it will have the increase taxed at their highest marginal rate (Gordon Brown's weird tax rate at ~£100k-£120 exempted).
The only people who get the full benefit will be poorer pensioners.
Quite surprised that Mr Hunt is restoring LHA back to the reduced rate (30th percentile of local market rent) introduced by the Conservatives about 8-9 years ago, rather than cutting it again by imposing a another cash freeze.
That will feel like a bonus to some, I think, as it will also catch up the 10.1% cut imposed 12 months ago.
In terms of absolute numbers I think he's right, certainly since 1951 say. Although given his access to data processing, both as an individual and the people he employs, shouldn't he (has he?) produced a bar chart to that effect?
There’s two particular outliers in the last couple of years, namely Ukraine and Hong Kong. One is temporary refuge-seeking from a war, and the other is the UK honouring a long-standing agreement to a former British protectorate.
Still doesn’t mean that we don’t need to build a million houses a year, starting about a decade ago.
I know quite a few Ukrainians (and a few Russians masquerading as Ukrainians. LOL) and I don't think any of them have expressed any intention of going back. The ones with kids in school in the UK have explicitly told us they are here for good.
The two who live with us don't even want to discuss it.
That is certainy not the case in Germany. The vast majority of refugees who came here in Spring 2022 want to go back home. Quite a few have gone back already despite the war, as most had hoped that the war would not last longer than 6 months.
The UK is further away from Ukraine and the UK government didn't make it easy for those who did make it to the UK. Anyone who got off a train in Berlin with Ukraine ID was immediately shown the way to apply for assylum (valid until the end of the war). The reason why I'm pointing this out is that most Ukranians who made the effort to get to the UK and apply for assylum there would have had their reasons to do so, such as friends, family or a UK employer.
Quite surprised that Mr Hunt is restoring LHA back to the reduced rate (30th percentile of local market rent) introduced by the Conservatives about 8-9 years ago, rather than cutting it again by imposing a another cash freeze.
That will feel like a bonus to some, I think, as it will also catch up the 10.1% cut imposed 12 months ago.
Yet again, I fear the inexperienced govt will largely boost people who are less likely to vote for them, and do nothing to shore up support amongst their usual base.
In terms of absolute numbers I think he's right, certainly since 1951 say. Although given his access to data processing, both as an individual and the people he employs, shouldn't he (has he?) produced a bar chart to that effect?
There’s two particular outliers in the last couple of years, namely Ukraine and Hong Kong. One is temporary refuge-seeking from a war, and the other is the UK honouring a long-standing agreement to a former British protectorate.
Still doesn’t mean that we don’t need to build a million houses a year, starting about a decade ago.
I know quite a few Ukrainians (and a few Russians masquerading as Ukrainians. LOL) and I don't think any of them have expressed any intention of going back. The ones with kids in school in the UK have explicitly told us they are here for good.
The two who live with us don't even want to discuss it.
That is certainy not the case in Germany. The vast majority of refugees who came here in Spring 2022 want to go back home. Quite a few have gone back already despite the war, as most had hoped that the war would not last longer than 6 months.
The UK is further away from Ukraine and the UK government didn't make it easy for those who did make it to the UK. Anyone who got off a train in Berlin with Ukraine ID was immediately shown the way to apply for assylum (valid until the end of the war). The reason why I'm pointing this out is that most Ukranians who made the effort to get to the UK and apply for assylum there would have had their reasons to do so, such as friends, family or a UK employer.
Also, lots of the UK Ukrainians are from the east (lots of Russian speakers who didn't fancy Poland, etc.) and that's the bit of Ukraine that is most comprehensively fucked. All they'd be going back to is smouldering rubble and a minefield the size of Wales.
Actually even the article first off mentions the constant change in ministers since 2016. I'm sure civil service flux doesn't help but in the end advisers advise and ministers decide.
We also seem to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on foreign investment but never much time on homegrown investment. Have we just given up on that? I'm uneasy with Macron-style luvviedom but I suppose the government needs to have some relationship with potential major investors.
The article also references planning as a major obstacle, perhaps THE major obstacle.
These 110 "boost business" measures will need some detailed examination !
Listening between the lines, it sounds to my ear as if he will be further undermining local government by some gratuitous political bashing - I hope I am wrong on that one.
Permitted development right to convert any house into flats sounds intricate, given the sound transmission prevention etc rules that make flat conversions quite complex to do in traditional buildings. Similar potential complexities as the office -> residential permitted development rights done a decade ago.
Quite surprised that Mr Hunt is restoring LHA back to the reduced rate (30th percentile of local market rent) introduced by the Conservatives about 8-9 years ago, rather than cutting it again by imposing a another cash freeze.
That will feel like a bonus to some, I think, as it will also catch up the 10.1% cut imposed 12 months ago.
Not sure whether that will win many votes.
Got to keep subsidising B2L landlords you know. Imagine how much cheaper housing might be if we didn't spend £16 billion quid a year to inflate rental prices...
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
"but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective."
7th October was pretty effective.
But that is what makes it so shocking to most people and to Israel, right? October 7th was the anomaly, not the rule. And Hamas managed to kill 1200 people and kidnap a few hundred, plus break down some parts of the border fence and some barracks - whereas Israel has levelled entire sections of Gaza, killed more than ten times that, and displaced many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and is arguing to displace all 2 million people in Gaza).
That, again, is not to say what Hamas did was acceptable or not a significant act of violence - but that in comparison to what the state of Israel can do (and has done in the past) it is not really in the same league.
Try re-writing that post with September 11 instead of October 7, and then the consequences for Afghanistan instead of Gaza. Exactly the same logic, excluding the final bit about displacing all people in Gaza, which isn't true anyway.
Having written that, I have realised that I don't really know what point you're making anyway. Terrorism is fine as long as the perpetrators aren't very good at it?
I of course don't believe that terrorism is fine - but I do believe that it doesn't come out of nowhere. September 11th is in some ways a very good analogy - because I don't think "they hate us for our freedoms" is why 9/11 happened, and I don't think the response to 9/11 was morally (or even politically) good or positive.
The belief here seems to be that terrorism comes from an evil desire from evil people. That's just not shown in the research. Terrorism happens when non state actors have political aims that they think are impossible to happen peacefully through the state, whether those aims are good or bad. Most (not all) of the people who commit terrorism are young men who see no future for themselves and become radicalised. The people at the top have narratives that feed this sense of futility and point it towards an enemy (real or imagined). Terrorism is fuelled by grievance.
There is a reason Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" has gone viral in this moment (and it isn't because the young are massively homophobic or anti-Semitic). It's because parts of it lay out a rationale for 9/11 that many of them were never taught - that American intervention in the Middle East, that the history of Western Imperialism, was never resolved. You can agree or disagree with that as an argument, you can agree or disagree with whether you think it is sincere coming from a guy whose family got rich off of oil investment and relationships with American capital, but it is an argument beyond "they hate us because they're evil".
Now, going back to 9/11 - has the American response to it done any good in the world? Is the American political psyche any better because of it? Is the world any better? Is Afghanistan, now back under Taliban rule, better? Is Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, any better? Why did ISIS arise? How did the world benefit from millions of dead Iraqis and Afghanis? I would say every outcomes from those wars - from the securitisation of everything, the spikes in islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, the destruction of whole countries and peoples - was bad. That seems like a very apt comparison to the reaction Israel is having against the Palestinians due to the actions of Hamas.
Have you considered spinning the telescope round?
Netanyahu & Co. are, in that analysis, the product of a state of unending, existential war since 1948.
All this tinkering might be good, bad or indifferent, but none of it will change the fundamentals in short term and thus won't change direction of the travel politically.
All this tinkering might be good, bad or indifferent, but none of it will change the fundamentals in short term and thus won't change direction of the travel politically.
I fear so.
A bloody big rabbit would be needed to move the dial, and I don't think there are any of these in the treasury.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
"but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective."
7th October was pretty effective.
But that is what makes it so shocking to most people and to Israel, right? October 7th was the anomaly, not the rule. And Hamas managed to kill 1200 people and kidnap a few hundred, plus break down some parts of the border fence and some barracks - whereas Israel has levelled entire sections of Gaza, killed more than ten times that, and displaced many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and is arguing to displace all 2 million people in Gaza).
That, again, is not to say what Hamas did was acceptable or not a significant act of violence - but that in comparison to what the state of Israel can do (and has done in the past) it is not really in the same league.
Try re-writing that post with September 11 instead of October 7, and then the consequences for Afghanistan instead of Gaza. Exactly the same logic, excluding the final bit about displacing all people in Gaza, which isn't true anyway.
Having written that, I have realised that I don't really know what point you're making anyway. Terrorism is fine as long as the perpetrators aren't very good at it?
I think 148grrs is a classic punch up ideologue. Israel has the power, therefore bad. Hamas are just freedom fighters.
It's not "more power = more bad" it's "more power = more culpability". If you have power and do good things with it - you deserve more of the acclaim. If you have power and do bad with it, you deserve more of the blame.
I would not, for example, consider a slave killing his enslaver as morally equivalent to an enslaver killing a slave. A poor person who steals a loaf of bread to not starve is not morally equivalent to a rich person stealing a loaf of bread because they can get away with it. When it comes to geopolitics, there are bigger grey areas, but I think the logic still holds. Who was to blame for the violence of the oppressed Africans in South Africa? I would argue those who held up apartheid, not those fighting against it. Does that mean I think placing burning tyres around the necks of people is a good thing? No.
When I was taught about WW2 one of the things I learnt about was the plans for fighting back if England got invaded by the Nazis - the hidden weapons, the argument that everyone should become a bomber. If the Nazis had won, that would have been terrorism in their eyes. But I think there would be a clear moral justification to do it, and to lay the blame of any violence or casualties at the feet of the aggressor in that case - Nazi Germany. Now, you could argue that Nazi Germany was uniquely evil, but lets replace them with Napoleonic France. I'd still think the same. Or Germany in WW1 - I still think it would be justifiable for people to fight back. So if I recognise that if I, or my family, or my nation would be justified and not as culpable for violence in those circumstances, why should it not be the same for others?
I wonder how many pbers can remember where they were 60 years ago today? Personally I wasn't born.
A good friend of mine was only a few hours old, born the day before the assasination. Coincidently I was born one day before his younger brother was killed.
I wonder how many pbers can remember where they were 60 years ago today? Personally I wasn't born.
I remember it well, and what I was doing when it kicked off on telly, early evening IIRC. I was 8, nearly 9 at the time. Apart from the very slightest awareness of the Cuba crisis a year earlier it is my first political memory.
I have a dim memory (possibly flawed) of Emergency Ward 10, a hospital soap on ITV, being continually interrupted by news flashes.
Quite surprised that Mr Hunt is restoring LHA back to the reduced rate (30th percentile of local market rent) introduced by the Conservatives about 8-9 years ago, rather than cutting it again by imposing a another cash freeze.
That will feel like a bonus to some, I think, as it will also catch up the 10.1% cut imposed 12 months ago.
Not sure whether that will win many votes.
Got to keep subsidising B2L landlords you know. Imagine how much cheaper housing might be if we didn't spend £16 billion quid a year to inflate rental prices...
Indeed. Imagine a policy that anyone who buys shares will get a minimum dividend of 30th percentile of the FTSE with the difference paid by the government and costing £16bn a year and rising. Of course it is impossible to find areas of government spending to cut.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
"but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective."
7th October was pretty effective.
But that is what makes it so shocking to most people and to Israel, right? October 7th was the anomaly, not the rule. And Hamas managed to kill 1200 people and kidnap a few hundred, plus break down some parts of the border fence and some barracks - whereas Israel has levelled entire sections of Gaza, killed more than ten times that, and displaced many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and is arguing to displace all 2 million people in Gaza).
That, again, is not to say what Hamas did was acceptable or not a significant act of violence - but that in comparison to what the state of Israel can do (and has done in the past) it is not really in the same league.
Try re-writing that post with September 11 instead of October 7, and then the consequences for Afghanistan instead of Gaza. Exactly the same logic, excluding the final bit about displacing all people in Gaza, which isn't true anyway.
Having written that, I have realised that I don't really know what point you're making anyway. Terrorism is fine as long as the perpetrators aren't very good at it?
I think 148grrs is a classic punch up ideologue. Israel has the power, therefore bad. Hamas are just freedom fighters.
It's not "more power = more bad" it's "more power = more culpability". If you have power and do good things with it - you deserve more of the acclaim. If you have power and do bad with it, you deserve more of the blame.
I would not, for example, consider a slave killing his enslaver as morally equivalent to an enslaver killing a slave. A poor person who steals a loaf of bread to not starve is not morally equivalent to a rich person stealing a loaf of bread because they can get away with it. When it comes to geopolitics, there are bigger grey areas, but I think the logic still holds. Who was to blame for the violence of the oppressed Africans in South Africa? I would argue those who held up apartheid, not those fighting against it. Does that mean I think placing burning tyres around the necks of people is a good thing? No.
When I was taught about WW2 one of the things I learnt about was the plans for fighting back if England got invaded by the Nazis - the hidden weapons, the argument that everyone should become a bomber. If the Nazis had won, that would have been terrorism in their eyes. But I think there would be a clear moral justification to do it, and to lay the blame of any violence or casualties at the feet of the aggressor in that case - Nazi Germany. Now, you could argue that Nazi Germany was uniquely evil, but lets replace them with Napoleonic France. I'd still think the same. Or Germany in WW1 - I still think it would be justifiable for people to fight back. So if I recognise that if I, or my family, or my nation would be justified and not as culpable for violence in those circumstances, why should it not be the same for others?
Because Israel wasn't in Gaza on October 7 (nor the US in Afghanistan on September 11), you complete and utter fucking imbecile.
Neither case can possibly be called self defence when they involved slaughter of innocent civilians far away from the perpetrators' homes.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
"but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective."
7th October was pretty effective.
But that is what makes it so shocking to most people and to Israel, right? October 7th was the anomaly, not the rule. And Hamas managed to kill 1200 people and kidnap a few hundred, plus break down some parts of the border fence and some barracks - whereas Israel has levelled entire sections of Gaza, killed more than ten times that, and displaced many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and is arguing to displace all 2 million people in Gaza).
That, again, is not to say what Hamas did was acceptable or not a significant act of violence - but that in comparison to what the state of Israel can do (and has done in the past) it is not really in the same league.
Try re-writing that post with September 11 instead of October 7, and then the consequences for Afghanistan instead of Gaza. Exactly the same logic, excluding the final bit about displacing all people in Gaza, which isn't true anyway.
Having written that, I have realised that I don't really know what point you're making anyway. Terrorism is fine as long as the perpetrators aren't very good at it?
I of course don't believe that terrorism is fine - but I do believe that it doesn't come out of nowhere. September 11th is in some ways a very good analogy - because I don't think "they hate us for our freedoms" is why 9/11 happened, and I don't think the response to 9/11 was morally (or even politically) good or positive.
The belief here seems to be that terrorism comes from an evil desire from evil people. That's just not shown in the research. Terrorism happens when non state actors have political aims that they think are impossible to happen peacefully through the state, whether those aims are good or bad. Most (not all) of the people who commit terrorism are young men who see no future for themselves and become radicalised. The people at the top have narratives that feed this sense of futility and point it towards an enemy (real or imagined). Terrorism is fuelled by grievance.
There is a reason Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" has gone viral in this moment (and it isn't because the young are massively homophobic or anti-Semitic). It's because parts of it lay out a rationale for 9/11 that many of them were never taught - that American intervention in the Middle East, that the history of Western Imperialism, was never resolved. You can agree or disagree with that as an argument, you can agree or disagree with whether you think it is sincere coming from a guy whose family got rich off of oil investment and relationships with American capital, but it is an argument beyond "they hate us because they're evil".
Now, going back to 9/11 - has the American response to it done any good in the world? Is the American political psyche any better because of it? Is the world any better? Is Afghanistan, now back under Taliban rule, better? Is Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, any better? Why did ISIS arise? How did the world benefit from millions of dead Iraqis and Afghanis? I would say every outcomes from those wars - from the securitisation of everything, the spikes in islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, the destruction of whole countries and peoples - was bad. That seems like a very apt comparison to the reaction Israel is having against the Palestinians due to the actions of Hamas.
Have you considered spinning the telescope round?
Netanyahu & Co. are, in that analysis, the product of a state of unending, existential war since 1948.
Of course - and I've laid blame and culpability here on the Balfour Declaration and the US and Western Imperial history for that, too. I've also talked about the history of European and Christian anti-Semitism. But the Jewish people were not given a state in Germany, for example, or somewhere else in Europe - despite it being European Christian anti-Semitism that tried to eradicate them. They were given land in the Middle East, partly because that's what some Zionists wanted and partly because that benefited Western interests (and a lot because European anti-Semitism meant Europeans with power still didn't want Jewish people in Europe). That may make today's Zionists less culpable for that past - but it doesn't make them less culpable for the actions of the Israeli state today than today's Palestinians or (indeed) Hamas.
Mr. grss, Jews were trying to get themselves land in that part of the world under the Seleucids, over 2,000 years ago. It's also where the so-called Jewish War chronicled by Josephus occurred.
The idea giving them land in Germany would be comparable might be considered optimistic.
Mr. grss, Jews were trying to get themselves land in that part of the world under the Seleucids, over 2,000 years ago. It's also where the so-called Jewish War chronicled by Josephus occurred.
The idea giving them land in Germany would be comparable might be considered optimistic.
But it is known there were many discussions about where the new Jewish state could have been, including places like Madagascar, and if the idea was that this was in some way in apology for the Holocaust, or to assure Jewish safety, then it would make more sense for those responsible for those things be the ones to give up something - not that other colonised people should suffer that fate.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
"but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective."
7th October was pretty effective.
But that is what makes it so shocking to most people and to Israel, right? October 7th was the anomaly, not the rule. And Hamas managed to kill 1200 people and kidnap a few hundred, plus break down some parts of the border fence and some barracks - whereas Israel has levelled entire sections of Gaza, killed more than ten times that, and displaced many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and is arguing to displace all 2 million people in Gaza).
That, again, is not to say what Hamas did was acceptable or not a significant act of violence - but that in comparison to what the state of Israel can do (and has done in the past) it is not really in the same league.
Try re-writing that post with September 11 instead of October 7, and then the consequences for Afghanistan instead of Gaza. Exactly the same logic, excluding the final bit about displacing all people in Gaza, which isn't true anyway.
Having written that, I have realised that I don't really know what point you're making anyway. Terrorism is fine as long as the perpetrators aren't very good at it?
I of course don't believe that terrorism is fine - but I do believe that it doesn't come out of nowhere. September 11th is in some ways a very good analogy - because I don't think "they hate us for our freedoms" is why 9/11 happened, and I don't think the response to 9/11 was morally (or even politically) good or positive.
The belief here seems to be that terrorism comes from an evil desire from evil people. That's just not shown in the research. Terrorism happens when non state actors have political aims that they think are impossible to happen peacefully through the state, whether those aims are good or bad. Most (not all) of the people who commit terrorism are young men who see no future for themselves and become radicalised. The people at the top have narratives that feed this sense of futility and point it towards an enemy (real or imagined). Terrorism is fuelled by grievance.
There is a reason Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" has gone viral in this moment (and it isn't because the young are massively homophobic or anti-Semitic). It's because parts of it lay out a rationale for 9/11 that many of them were never taught - that American intervention in the Middle East, that the history of Western Imperialism, was never resolved. You can agree or disagree with that as an argument, you can agree or disagree with whether you think it is sincere coming from a guy whose family got rich off of oil investment and relationships with American capital, but it is an argument beyond "they hate us because they're evil".
Now, going back to 9/11 - has the American response to it done any good in the world? Is the American political psyche any better because of it? Is the world any better? Is Afghanistan, now back under Taliban rule, better? Is Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, any better? Why did ISIS arise? How did the world benefit from millions of dead Iraqis and Afghanis? I would say every outcomes from those wars - from the securitisation of everything, the spikes in islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, the destruction of whole countries and peoples - was bad. That seems like a very apt comparison to the reaction Israel is having against the Palestinians due to the actions of Hamas.
Have you considered spinning the telescope round?
Netanyahu & Co. are, in that analysis, the product of a state of unending, existential war since 1948.
Of course - and I've laid blame and culpability here on the Balfour Declaration and the US and Western Imperial history for that, too. I've also talked about the history of European and Christian anti-Semitism. But the Jewish people were not given a state in Germany, for example, or somewhere else in Europe - despite it being European Christian anti-Semitism that tried to eradicate them. They were given land in the Middle East, partly because that's what some Zionists wanted and partly because that benefited Western interests (and a lot because European anti-Semitism meant Europeans with power still didn't want Jewish people in Europe). That may make today's Zionists less culpable for that past - but it doesn't make them less culpable for the actions of the Israeli state today than today's Palestinians or (indeed) Hamas.
How’s about putting the blame on the Hamas terrorists who killed more than 1,000 innocent Israeli civilians on 7th October? Without that, there’s no escalation to the war.
Hamas simply don’t want the Jews to have a state. The terrorist attacks were to try and kybosh the talks between Israel and Saudi, the end result is likely to be wider isolation of Iran and Qatar within the region, and the rest of the Gulf embracing the opportunities to trade with Israel.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
"but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective."
7th October was pretty effective.
But that is what makes it so shocking to most people and to Israel, right? October 7th was the anomaly, not the rule. And Hamas managed to kill 1200 people and kidnap a few hundred, plus break down some parts of the border fence and some barracks - whereas Israel has levelled entire sections of Gaza, killed more than ten times that, and displaced many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and is arguing to displace all 2 million people in Gaza).
That, again, is not to say what Hamas did was acceptable or not a significant act of violence - but that in comparison to what the state of Israel can do (and has done in the past) it is not really in the same league.
Try re-writing that post with September 11 instead of October 7, and then the consequences for Afghanistan instead of Gaza. Exactly the same logic, excluding the final bit about displacing all people in Gaza, which isn't true anyway.
Having written that, I have realised that I don't really know what point you're making anyway. Terrorism is fine as long as the perpetrators aren't very good at it?
I of course don't believe that terrorism is fine - but I do believe that it doesn't come out of nowhere. September 11th is in some ways a very good analogy - because I don't think "they hate us for our freedoms" is why 9/11 happened, and I don't think the response to 9/11 was morally (or even politically) good or positive.
The belief here seems to be that terrorism comes from an evil desire from evil people. That's just not shown in the research. Terrorism happens when non state actors have political aims that they think are impossible to happen peacefully through the state, whether those aims are good or bad. Most (not all) of the people who commit terrorism are young men who see no future for themselves and become radicalised. The people at the top have narratives that feed this sense of futility and point it towards an enemy (real or imagined). Terrorism is fuelled by grievance.
There is a reason Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" has gone viral in this moment (and it isn't because the young are massively homophobic or anti-Semitic). It's because parts of it lay out a rationale for 9/11 that many of them were never taught - that American intervention in the Middle East, that the history of Western Imperialism, was never resolved. You can agree or disagree with that as an argument, you can agree or disagree with whether you think it is sincere coming from a guy whose family got rich off of oil investment and relationships with American capital, but it is an argument beyond "they hate us because they're evil".
Now, going back to 9/11 - has the American response to it done any good in the world? Is the American political psyche any better because of it? Is the world any better? Is Afghanistan, now back under Taliban rule, better? Is Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, any better? Why did ISIS arise? How did the world benefit from millions of dead Iraqis and Afghanis? I would say every outcomes from those wars - from the securitisation of everything, the spikes in islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, the destruction of whole countries and peoples - was bad. That seems like a very apt comparison to the reaction Israel is having against the Palestinians due to the actions of Hamas.
Have you considered spinning the telescope round?
Netanyahu & Co. are, in that analysis, the product of a state of unending, existential war since 1948.
I would question whether Israel has been in a state of “existential” war since 1948, but more than that, I think it would be an odd interpretation of Israeli politics since 1948 to see Bibi and allies as the product of such. When Israel did face a more existential threat, they voted for peace-loving lefties more often. Bibi comes out of an era of Israeli military dominance and peace with neighbouring Arab countries.
The big factors in the rise of Bibi’s allies are arguably more about aliyah from the former Communist bloc and increased settlements. (Settlers living on occupied territory in the West Bank get to vote in Israeli elections. Their Palestinian neighbours don’t.)
If the changes to benefits are passed then we're fundamentally a different country to today because welfare will no longer be universal and people can be kicked out of the safety net. I'm impressed but I expect the lefty do gooders to pick up on this pretty soon.
If the changes to benefits are passed then we're fundamentally a different country to today because welfare will no longer be universal and people can be kicked out of the safety net. I'm impressed but I expect the lefty do gooders to pick up on this pretty soon.
Will probably increase unemployment and encourage automation.
I rather think that's the point, especially when taken with the full expensing moves. The UK is going to look more like Switzerland.
2p off NI as well, take that you old farts, a tax cut you don't get!
They got their 8.5% rise in the state pension though but yes generally an autumn statement focused on tax cuts for workers and the self employed and investment for businesses
Mr. grss, Jews were trying to get themselves land in that part of the world under the Seleucids, over 2,000 years ago. It's also where the so-called Jewish War chronicled by Josephus occurred.
The idea giving them land in Germany would be comparable might be considered optimistic.
But it is known there were many discussions about where the new Jewish state could have been, including places like Madagascar, and if the idea was that this was in some way in apology for the Holocaust, or to assure Jewish safety, then it would make more sense for those responsible for those things be the ones to give up something - not that other colonised people should suffer that fate.
That's a bogus argument IMO. The stain of anti-Semitism is such , that wherever Jews went they would get accused of 'stealing' land and 'displacing' people. Unless you are talking about Antarctica, and even then people would probably complain about the penguins...
Life for Jews in the ME was far from good under Islamic rule, whatever the odd 'historians' you refer to say. Remember how Amin al-Husseini drafted declaration to Germany that said:
"Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy."
NI cut from Jan 6th rather than April... Gearing up for a May election where you'll have then had a couple of months of tax cuts seen in your pay packet?
I wonder how many pbers can remember where they were 60 years ago today? Personally I wasn't born.
I can. At least between 1700 and 2000 GMT
I'd been at a sixth-formers' lecture in my local university (I was due to take A levels the following summer) and walked home to be told that JFK had been shot. As good Catholics, we went to the church down the road to pray for him - and around 1900 UK time, we were told he'd died.
It's one of only four deaths of a head of state (the others were Joe Stalin, George VI and Elizabeth II) that I can remember where I was when I heard about it.
If the changes to benefits are passed then we're fundamentally a different country to today because welfare will no longer be universal and people can be kicked out of the safety net. I'm impressed but I expect the lefty do gooders to pick up on this pretty soon.
Unless I missed it there is nothing to help the councils struggling at the moment. Cutting taxes for workers and increasing benefits while shifting the burden onto council tax (very new labour pushing spending onto councils) hardly helps people overall.
Pretty mediocre. May save them a few seats but labour govt pretty certain unless a black swan.
That sounds like a spring election to me. They want people to see the benefits in people’s wages in February. Hmm interesting.
Yeah we're absolutely gearing up for a May 2024 election. Inflation will be down to about 3.5% by then, the economy is likely to outperform the current forecasts and people will have had about 6-8 months of real terms pay growth by then so will feel better off.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
"but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective."
7th October was pretty effective.
But that is what makes it so shocking to most people and to Israel, right? October 7th was the anomaly, not the rule. And Hamas managed to kill 1200 people and kidnap a few hundred, plus break down some parts of the border fence and some barracks - whereas Israel has levelled entire sections of Gaza, killed more than ten times that, and displaced many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and is arguing to displace all 2 million people in Gaza).
That, again, is not to say what Hamas did was acceptable or not a significant act of violence - but that in comparison to what the state of Israel can do (and has done in the past) it is not really in the same league.
Try re-writing that post with September 11 instead of October 7, and then the consequences for Afghanistan instead of Gaza. Exactly the same logic, excluding the final bit about displacing all people in Gaza, which isn't true anyway.
Having written that, I have realised that I don't really know what point you're making anyway. Terrorism is fine as long as the perpetrators aren't very good at it?
I of course don't believe that terrorism is fine - but I do believe that it doesn't come out of nowhere. September 11th is in some ways a very good analogy - because I don't think "they hate us for our freedoms" is why 9/11 happened, and I don't think the response to 9/11 was morally (or even politically) good or positive.
The belief here seems to be that terrorism comes from an evil desire from evil people. That's just not shown in the research. Terrorism happens when non state actors have political aims that they think are impossible to happen peacefully through the state, whether those aims are good or bad. Most (not all) of the people who commit terrorism are young men who see no future for themselves and become radicalised. The people at the top have narratives that feed this sense of futility and point it towards an enemy (real or imagined). Terrorism is fuelled by grievance.
There is a reason Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" has gone viral in this moment (and it isn't because the young are massively homophobic or anti-Semitic). It's because parts of it lay out a rationale for 9/11 that many of them were never taught - that American intervention in the Middle East, that the history of Western Imperialism, was never resolved. You can agree or disagree with that as an argument, you can agree or disagree with whether you think it is sincere coming from a guy whose family got rich off of oil investment and relationships with American capital, but it is an argument beyond "they hate us because they're evil".
Now, going back to 9/11 - has the American response to it done any good in the world? Is the American political psyche any better because of it? Is the world any better? Is Afghanistan, now back under Taliban rule, better? Is Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, any better? Why did ISIS arise? How did the world benefit from millions of dead Iraqis and Afghanis? I would say every outcomes from those wars - from the securitisation of everything, the spikes in islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, the destruction of whole countries and peoples - was bad. That seems like a very apt comparison to the reaction Israel is having against the Palestinians due to the actions of Hamas.
Have you considered spinning the telescope round?
Netanyahu & Co. are, in that analysis, the product of a state of unending, existential war since 1948.
Of course - and I've laid blame and culpability here on the Balfour Declaration and the US and Western Imperial history for that, too. I've also talked about the history of European and Christian anti-Semitism. But the Jewish people were not given a state in Germany, for example, or somewhere else in Europe - despite it being European Christian anti-Semitism that tried to eradicate them. They were given land in the Middle East, partly because that's what some Zionists wanted and partly because that benefited Western interests (and a lot because European anti-Semitism meant Europeans with power still didn't want Jewish people in Europe). That may make today's Zionists less culpable for that past - but it doesn't make them less culpable for the actions of the Israeli state today than today's Palestinians or (indeed) Hamas.
How’s about putting the blame on the Hamas terrorists who killed more than 1,000 innocent Israeli civilians on 7th October? Without that, there’s no escalation to the war.
Hamas simply don’t want the Jews to have a state. The terrorist attacks were to try and kybosh the talks between Israel and Saudi, the end result is likely to be wider isolation of Iran and Qatar within the region, and the rest of the Gulf embracing the opportunities to trade with Israel.
Before October 7th 2023 was one of the deadliest years for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and I think the deadliest year for children in the West Banks specifically on record. Is that not an escalation?
For all those of you who are really excited about the upcoming Cybertruck launch (ten sleeps until Cybertruck!) and have a stack of cash and an airship hanger to park it in, you may be interested in this podcast. Doug DeMuro and Alex Goy are in it, so crossover squee
Comments
Some kind of victory for Putin means europe becomes v unsafe.
Torsten Bell
@TorstenBell
·
1m
8.5% state pension rise. This plus benefit uprating means fiscal improvement must be very big - made difficult decisions go away
The belief here seems to be that terrorism comes from an evil desire from evil people. That's just not shown in the research. Terrorism happens when non state actors have political aims that they think are impossible to happen peacefully through the state, whether those aims are good or bad. Most (not all) of the people who commit terrorism are young men who see no future for themselves and become radicalised. The people at the top have narratives that feed this sense of futility and point it towards an enemy (real or imagined). Terrorism is fuelled by grievance.
There is a reason Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" has gone viral in this moment (and it isn't because the young are massively homophobic or anti-Semitic). It's because parts of it lay out a rationale for 9/11 that many of them were never taught - that American intervention in the Middle East, that the history of Western Imperialism, was never resolved. You can agree or disagree with that as an argument, you can agree or disagree with whether you think it is sincere coming from a guy whose family got rich off of oil investment and relationships with American capital, but it is an argument beyond "they hate us because they're evil".
Now, going back to 9/11 - has the American response to it done any good in the world? Is the American political psyche any better because of it? Is the world any better? Is Afghanistan, now back under Taliban rule, better? Is Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, any better? Why did ISIS arise? How did the world benefit from millions of dead Iraqis and Afghanis? I would say every outcomes from those wars - from the securitisation of everything, the spikes in islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, the destruction of whole countries and peoples - was bad. That seems like a very apt comparison to the reaction Israel is having against the Palestinians due to the actions of Hamas.
For anyone on high incomes receiving it will have the increase taxed at their highest marginal rate (Gordon Brown's weird tax rate at ~£100k-£120 exempted).
The only people who get the full benefit will be poorer pensioners.
And now you've lost your mojo. Sad.
The worldwide obsession is doing my nut. Let them fight it out, the Zionists and the jihadis, yawn
That will feel like a bonus to some, I think, as it will also catch up the 10.1% cut imposed 12 months ago.
Not sure whether that will win many votes.
Until we solve productivity, never going to be enough money for anything.
The UK is further away from Ukraine and the UK government didn't make it easy for those who did make it to the UK. Anyone who got off a train in Berlin with Ukraine ID was immediately shown the way to apply for assylum (valid until the end of the war). The reason why I'm pointing this out is that most Ukranians who made the effort to get to the UK and apply for assylum there would have had their reasons to do so, such as friends, family or a UK employer.
FAR more interesting is my new suite on the 33rd floor of the Rosewood, Phnom Penh
I can’t work out whether the view is better from my living room
Or my bedroom
Or my workspace
We also seem to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on foreign investment but never much time on homegrown investment. Have we just given up on that? I'm uneasy with Macron-style luvviedom but I suppose the government needs to have some relationship with potential major investors.
The article also references planning as a major obstacle, perhaps THE major obstacle.
This is LUSH
Listening between the lines, it sounds to my ear as if he will be further undermining local government by some gratuitous political bashing - I hope I am wrong on that one.
Permitted development right to convert any house into flats sounds intricate, given the sound transmission prevention etc rules that make flat conversions quite complex to do in traditional buildings. Similar potential complexities as the office -> residential permitted development rights done a decade ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMY9y_iwlY
Tricky Dicky regrets he didn't do it sooner.
I’ve got a skyscraper view from my bath and a TV in the mirror
Cambodia is minted. They live like emperors
Netanyahu & Co. are, in that analysis, the product of a state of unending, existential war since 1948.
A bloody big rabbit would be needed to move the dial, and I don't think there are any of these in the treasury.
We must cease all aid to them immediately
I would not, for example, consider a slave killing his enslaver as morally equivalent to an enslaver killing a slave. A poor person who steals a loaf of bread to not starve is not morally equivalent to a rich person stealing a loaf of bread because they can get away with it. When it comes to geopolitics, there are bigger grey areas, but I think the logic still holds. Who was to blame for the violence of the oppressed Africans in South Africa? I would argue those who held up apartheid, not those fighting against it. Does that mean I think placing burning tyres around the necks of people is a good thing? No.
When I was taught about WW2 one of the things I learnt about was the plans for fighting back if England got invaded by the Nazis - the hidden weapons, the argument that everyone should become a bomber. If the Nazis had won, that would have been terrorism in their eyes. But I think there would be a clear moral justification to do it, and to lay the blame of any violence or casualties at the feet of the aggressor in that case - Nazi Germany. Now, you could argue that Nazi Germany was uniquely evil, but lets replace them with Napoleonic France. I'd still think the same. Or Germany in WW1 - I still think it would be justifiable for people to fight back. So if I recognise that if I, or my family, or my nation would be justified and not as culpable for violence in those circumstances, why should it not be the same for others?
I have a dim memory (possibly flawed) of Emergency Ward 10, a hospital soap on ITV, being continually interrupted by news flashes.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/november-22-1963-death-of-the-president
Neither case can possibly be called self defence when they involved slaughter of innocent civilians far away from the perpetrators' homes.
Of course the biggest change that could be made to help biz would be to cut Corp tax......
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/abolition-of-class-2-national-insurance-contributions/abolition-of-class-2-national-insurance-contributions
Should just about cover your suite, F&B, and any ‘extras’ the conscierge might arrange for the night.
The idea giving them land in Germany would be comparable might be considered optimistic.
Without that, there’s no escalation to the war.
Hamas simply don’t want the Jews to have a state. The terrorist attacks were to try and kybosh the talks between Israel and Saudi, the end result is likely to be wider isolation of Iran and Qatar within the region, and the rest of the Gulf embracing the opportunities to trade with Israel.
The big factors in the rise of Bibi’s allies are arguably more about aliyah from the former Communist bloc and increased settlements. (Settlers living on occupied territory in the West Bank get to vote in Israeli elections. Their Palestinian neighbours don’t.)
Will probably increase unemployment and encourage automation.
2p off NI as well, take that you old farts, a tax cut you don't get!
Cheers Hunt.
Life for Jews in the ME was far from good under Islamic rule, whatever the odd 'historians' you refer to say. Remember how Amin al-Husseini drafted declaration to Germany that said:
"Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy."
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini
Employee goes 12% to 10%
Self-employed goes 9% to 8%
I doubt we'll be seeing inflation increases to the personal allowance then.
I'd been at a sixth-formers' lecture in my local university (I was due to take A levels the following summer) and walked home to be told that JFK had been shot. As good Catholics, we went to the church down the road to pray for him - and around 1900 UK time, we were told he'd died.
It's one of only four deaths of a head of state (the others were Joe Stalin, George VI and Elizabeth II) that I can remember where I was when I heard about it.
Pretty mediocre. May save them a few seats but labour govt pretty certain unless a black swan.
It's a bribe, and an unsustainable one (look at the spending assumptions needed to make it work), but it's an impressive one.
"InsideEVs Podcast #186: Special Guest Doug Demuro, Ram 1500 Ramcharger, Matte Black Tesla Cybertruck", YouTube, 10Nov2023, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcf1qDdwioI