It costs £16 to buy a one day travel card in London, and then you see multiple people barging through the barriers. No wonder people are furious. The TFL employees just stand there, watching it happen in front of their noses. I can understand why they don't challenge the criminals, in case they have weapons.
Indeed. It’s an obvious and dangerous erosion of the social contract. Why should ANYONE be law abiding - and pay their fares, and buy their shopping - when they daily see people blatantly dodging the costs of both and the state refusing to act
This is broken windows theory. It’s true and it’s obvious. If Starmer wants a second term he needs to get to grips with this. Scuzz Nation. The petty crime and the litter. The graffiti and the grift
It’s also relatively low hanging fruit in our difficult times. Change the law so that fare dodgers and shoplifters face hefty punishment and they can be stopped with force. Make an example of several hundred of them - this is, after all, what Starmer did with several hundred post Southport protestors. This is what he’s good at
Guaranteed people will stop once they see that doing it can be extremely painful
This alone could lift Starmer by 5 points in the polls over a few years
Just bring in those tall revolving turnstiles where only one person can get through at a time and if someone is too fat they can go to a manned gate.
Cuts fare dodging and helps “our NHS” by encouraging people to lose weight so they don’t have to go to the gate of shame.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
We seem to have arrived at Jan 1945. Germany (Gaza) is a ruin, and any normal state would have surrendered ages ok. But they do not. The Nazis (Hamas) have a tight stranglehold and will never surrender. How then do the Allies (Israel) win?
The losers, as always in war, are the poor bloody civilians.
Well said.
We insisted upon unconditional surrender of the Nazis to end the war. Israel should do the same and we should be a steadfast ally of theirs until that happens and make it clear the war only ends when Hamas surrenders.
The mealy-mouthed talk of peace without doing anything is the worst of both worlds falling between the stools of siding with Hamas or siding with Israel. We don't need a ceasefire, we need a victory and the end of war.
At least it's not as bad as Japan 1945. No matter how bad it gets, Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza City and Khan Younis.
Saying Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza is rather damning with faint praise.
It's an existential battle for them like it was for us in 1945.
America was right to bomb Japan. Israel is fighting a horrific war better than we did.
You say this with some regularity. It remains bollocks. The fight against Hamas in Gaza is not an existential battle for Israel. Israel has complete military domination over Gaza. Israel is not going to cease to exist,
Here’s proof that it’s not an existential battle. Israel has diverted significant resources to bombing and invading parts of Syria despite no immediate threat and positive words wanting peace coming from the new Syrian administration. Israel has said they’ve done much of this to protect the Syrian Druze population. Were Israel really in an existential battle in Gaza, they wouldn’t have capacity to go into Syria. Israel is, if in a subtler manner than Putin, invading its neighbours for territorial gain.
The US in 1945 did not control Japan. Israel controls Gaza. They should do to Gaza what we did to West Germany: hand it back to the local population after a few years.
If we're being honest, by 1945, it wasn't existential for us or the Americans.
Not saying that makes what Israel is doing okay, but what happened at the end of WW2 was about making sure it didn't happen again.
Making sure WW2 (and WW1, the war it was hoped would end all wars) never happened again included the establishment of pan-national and global institutions such as Nato, the ECSC/EEC/EU, the Council of Europe, the ECJ, the ECHR, the ICC, the United Nations, the WTO and various other bodies which recently seem to be falling out of favour, both here and in America.
Because they're as useless as the League of Nations.
The track record of the UN’s contributions to world peace, while far from perfect, are clearly much better than the League’s.
Not convinced of that; the track record of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction is much better.
Yes, no nuclear power has gone to war since the 50s (excluding Russia, of course, and America and Britain and Israel and India and Pakistan). China maybe?
Nuclear weapons prevent the nuclear state from being invaded, not invading others who don't have nukes.
Nuclear weapons mean none of the states you name have been invaded, with the potential exception of Ukraine going into Russia's border territory during a war Russia chose to start.
The UN has done jack shit to prevent any of those wars that have happened.
Invasions of countries with nuclear weapons:
Yom Kippur War, 1973 Argentine invasion of the Falklands, 1982 Siachen conflict, 1984 Kargil War, 1999 October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, 2023
Quite a miniscule list of relatively conflicts compared to the list of invasions of non-nuclear states. Or those same states pre-nuclear weapons.
And none of those conflicts was prevented by the UN.
The UN has had as much success as the League of Nations in preventing war. Nuclear weapons have been a bigger deterrent.
FFS is it possible to turn on the news without seeing Trump.
No one gives a flying fxck what he’s doing in the Middle East .
What Trump is doing in the Middle East is even more important than the Eurovision semifinals. He is contributing towards world peace, and also taking a massive bung. So pro- or anti-Trump, this really does matter.
The Saudis and Qataris seem to be even better at dickriding him than SKS. Look and learn, Canada.
You are right however not sure the electorate of Canada, yet alone the UK, are up for buying Trump a 747 and $200b of other planes from Boeing.
Saudi and Qatar need to give precisely zero fucks about what the people think.
“Honestly I am becoming radicalised by watching fully grown adults - adults - push through the ticket barriers on the tube while I pay 6 quid a day to get to and from work. This is not how a functioning good quality society is meant to work.”
FFS is it possible to turn on the news without seeing Trump.
No one gives a flying fxck what he’s doing in the Middle East .
This is one of the concerns I have with Donald Trump. His objective is to lead the news all day every day, 52 weeks of the year, no respite. There's 44 months of this to go. That's a long time. People will grow weary of it, therefore to maintain ratings he will reach for increasingly outrageous behaviour.
FWIW, I think different standards apply to scuzz and regular commuters.
You try pulling a fare-dodge in a suit and you'll be far more likely to be prosecuted and with graver consequences as a "normal" person for whom a clean record is essential for one's livelihood.
FWIW, I think different standards apply to scuzz and regular commuters.
You try pulling a fare-dodge in a suit and you'll be far more likely to be prosecuted and with graver consequences as a "normal" person for whom a clean record is essential for one's livelihood.
It didn't take long to get to two-tier fare-dodging. I blame Starmer.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Israel's Minister of Finance, Bezalel Smotrich: "There are no half measures ... Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat – total annihiliation. 'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.' There is no place for them under heaven." Haaretz described this as a call to genocide. There's plenty more from him. Some in the Israeli administration favour genocide &/or ethnic cleansing.
FFS is it possible to turn on the news without seeing Trump.
No one gives a flying fxck what he’s doing in the Middle East .
This is one of the concerns I have with Donald Trump. His objective is to lead the news all day every day, 52 weeks of the year, no respite. There's 44 months of this to go. That's a long time. People will grow weary of it, therefore to maintain ratings he will reach for increasingly outrageous behaviour.
Its a bit like BBC2 on Sunday evenings used to be, there are going to be an awful lot of repeats. Tariffs on, tariffs off. Putin great, Putin bad. Sleepy Joe. Windmills and whales. Losing court battles.
It costs £16 to buy a one day travel card in London, and then you see multiple people barging through the barriers. No wonder people are furious. The TFL employees just stand there, watching it happen in front of their noses. I can understand why they don't challenge the criminals, in case they have weapons.
I never pay on the rare occasions I travel on the underground. Nobody cares. Nobody gives a shit.
That's only so you can get home to your bungalow as fast as possible, so you don't miss the UKGold+ rebroadcast of The Vicar of Dibley, Season 2, episode 9
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
We seem to have arrived at Jan 1945. Germany (Gaza) is a ruin, and any normal state would have surrendered ages ok. But they do not. The Nazis (Hamas) have a tight stranglehold and will never surrender. How then do the Allies (Israel) win?
The losers, as always in war, are the poor bloody civilians.
Well said.
We insisted upon unconditional surrender of the Nazis to end the war. Israel should do the same and we should be a steadfast ally of theirs until that happens and make it clear the war only ends when Hamas surrenders.
The mealy-mouthed talk of peace without doing anything is the worst of both worlds falling between the stools of siding with Hamas or siding with Israel. We don't need a ceasefire, we need a victory and the end of war.
At least it's not as bad as Japan 1945. No matter how bad it gets, Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza City and Khan Younis.
Saying Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza is rather damning with faint praise.
It's an existential battle for them like it was for us in 1945.
America was right to bomb Japan. Israel is fighting a horrific war better than we did.
You say this with some regularity. It remains bollocks. The fight against Hamas in Gaza is not an existential battle for Israel. Israel has complete military domination over Gaza. Israel is not going to cease to exist,
Here’s proof that it’s not an existential battle. Israel has diverted significant resources to bombing and invading parts of Syria despite no immediate threat and positive words wanting peace coming from the new Syrian administration. Israel has said they’ve done much of this to protect the Syrian Druze population. Were Israel really in an existential battle in Gaza, they wouldn’t have capacity to go into Syria. Israel is, if in a subtler manner than Putin, invading its neighbours for territorial gain.
The US in 1945 did not control Japan. Israel controls Gaza. They should do to Gaza what we did to West Germany: hand it back to the local population after a few years.
If we're being honest, by 1945, it wasn't existential for us or the Americans.
Not saying that makes what Israel is doing okay, but what happened at the end of WW2 was about making sure it didn't happen again.
Making sure WW2 (and WW1, the war it was hoped would end all wars) never happened again included the establishment of pan-national and global institutions such as Nato, the ECSC/EEC/EU, the Council of Europe, the ECJ, the ECHR, the ICC, the United Nations, the WTO and various other bodies which recently seem to be falling out of favour, both here and in America.
Because they're as useless as the League of Nations.
The track record of the UN’s contributions to world peace, while far from perfect, are clearly much better than the League’s.
Not convinced of that; the track record of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction is much better.
Yes, no nuclear power has gone to war since the 50s (excluding Russia, of course, and America and Britain and Israel and India and Pakistan). China maybe?
Nuclear weapons prevent the nuclear state from being invaded, not invading others who don't have nukes.
Nuclear weapons mean none of the states you name have been invaded, with the potential exception of Ukraine going into Russia's border territory during a war Russia chose to start.
The UN has done jack shit to prevent any of those wars that have happened.
Invasions of countries with nuclear weapons:
Yom Kippur War, 1973 Argentine invasion of the Falklands, 1982 Siachen conflict, 1984 Kargil War, 1999 October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, 2023
Quite a miniscule list of relatively conflicts compared to the list of invasions of non-nuclear states. Or those same states pre-nuclear weapons.
And none of those conflicts was prevented by the UN.
The UN has had as much success as the League of Nations in preventing war. Nuclear weapons have been a bigger deterrent.
You said there were no cases, except Ukraine's invasion of some Russian territory. You were wrong.
No conflict that happened was prevented, obviously. That's a tautology.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
“Honestly I am becoming radicalised by watching fully grown adults - adults - push through the ticket barriers on the tube while I pay 6 quid a day to get to and from work. This is not how a functioning good quality society is meant to work.”
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
We seem to have arrived at Jan 1945. Germany (Gaza) is a ruin, and any normal state would have surrendered ages ok. But they do not. The Nazis (Hamas) have a tight stranglehold and will never surrender. How then do the Allies (Israel) win?
The losers, as always in war, are the poor bloody civilians.
Well said.
We insisted upon unconditional surrender of the Nazis to end the war. Israel should do the same and we should be a steadfast ally of theirs until that happens and make it clear the war only ends when Hamas surrenders.
The mealy-mouthed talk of peace without doing anything is the worst of both worlds falling between the stools of siding with Hamas or siding with Israel. We don't need a ceasefire, we need a victory and the end of war.
At least it's not as bad as Japan 1945. No matter how bad it gets, Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza City and Khan Younis.
Saying Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza is rather damning with faint praise.
It's an existential battle for them like it was for us in 1945.
America was right to bomb Japan. Israel is fighting a horrific war better than we did.
You say this with some regularity. It remains bollocks. The fight against Hamas in Gaza is not an existential battle for Israel. Israel has complete military domination over Gaza. Israel is not going to cease to exist,
Here’s proof that it’s not an existential battle. Israel has diverted significant resources to bombing and invading parts of Syria despite no immediate threat and positive words wanting peace coming from the new Syrian administration. Israel has said they’ve done much of this to protect the Syrian Druze population. Were Israel really in an existential battle in Gaza, they wouldn’t have capacity to go into Syria. Israel is, if in a subtler manner than Putin, invading its neighbours for territorial gain.
The US in 1945 did not control Japan. Israel controls Gaza. They should do to Gaza what we did to West Germany: hand it back to the local population after a few years.
If we're being honest, by 1945, it wasn't existential for us or the Americans.
Not saying that makes what Israel is doing okay, but what happened at the end of WW2 was about making sure it didn't happen again.
Making sure WW2 (and WW1, the war it was hoped would end all wars) never happened again included the establishment of pan-national and global institutions such as Nato, the ECSC/EEC/EU, the Council of Europe, the ECJ, the ECHR, the ICC, the United Nations, the WTO and various other bodies which recently seem to be falling out of favour, both here and in America.
Because they're as useless as the League of Nations.
The track record of the UN’s contributions to world peace, while far from perfect, are clearly much better than the League’s.
Not convinced of that; the track record of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction is much better.
Yes, no nuclear power has gone to war since the 50s (excluding Russia, of course, and America and Britain and Israel and India and Pakistan). China maybe?
Nuclear weapons prevent the nuclear state from being invaded, not invading others who don't have nukes.
Nuclear weapons mean none of the states you name have been invaded, with the potential exception of Ukraine going into Russia's border territory during a war Russia chose to start.
The UN has done jack shit to prevent any of those wars that have happened.
Invasions of countries with nuclear weapons:
Yom Kippur War, 1973 Argentine invasion of the Falklands, 1982 Siachen conflict, 1984 Kargil War, 1999 October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, 2023
Quite a miniscule list of relatively conflicts compared to the list of invasions of non-nuclear states. Or those same states pre-nuclear weapons.
And none of those conflicts was prevented by the UN.
The UN has had as much success as the League of Nations in preventing war. Nuclear weapons have been a bigger deterrent.
You said there were no cases, except Ukraine's invasion of some Russian territory. You were wrong.
No conflict that happened was prevented, obviously. That's a tautology.
Yes, there have been some relatively minor cases happening, I accept that and was wrong to say none.
Not as wrong as you were to say the UN has a decent track record.
I'd like to know of any potential conflict that was avoided due to the UN, as opposed to being avoided due to deterrence.
FWIW, I think different standards apply to scuzz and regular commuters.
You try pulling a fare-dodge in a suit and you'll be far more likely to be prosecuted and with graver consequences as a "normal" person for whom a clean record is essential for one's livelihood.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
We seem to have arrived at Jan 1945. Germany (Gaza) is a ruin, and any normal state would have surrendered ages ok. But they do not. The Nazis (Hamas) have a tight stranglehold and will never surrender. How then do the Allies (Israel) win?
The losers, as always in war, are the poor bloody civilians.
Well said.
We insisted upon unconditional surrender of the Nazis to end the war. Israel should do the same and we should be a steadfast ally of theirs until that happens and make it clear the war only ends when Hamas surrenders.
The mealy-mouthed talk of peace without doing anything is the worst of both worlds falling between the stools of siding with Hamas or siding with Israel. We don't need a ceasefire, we need a victory and the end of war.
At least it's not as bad as Japan 1945. No matter how bad it gets, Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza City and Khan Younis.
Saying Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza is rather damning with faint praise.
It's an existential battle for them like it was for us in 1945.
America was right to bomb Japan. Israel is fighting a horrific war better than we did.
You say this with some regularity. It remains bollocks. The fight against Hamas in Gaza is not an existential battle for Israel. Israel has complete military domination over Gaza. Israel is not going to cease to exist,
Here’s proof that it’s not an existential battle. Israel has diverted significant resources to bombing and invading parts of Syria despite no immediate threat and positive words wanting peace coming from the new Syrian administration. Israel has said they’ve done much of this to protect the Syrian Druze population. Were Israel really in an existential battle in Gaza, they wouldn’t have capacity to go into Syria. Israel is, if in a subtler manner than Putin, invading its neighbours for territorial gain.
The US in 1945 did not control Japan. Israel controls Gaza. They should do to Gaza what we did to West Germany: hand it back to the local population after a few years.
If we're being honest, by 1945, it wasn't existential for us or the Americans.
Not saying that makes what Israel is doing okay, but what happened at the end of WW2 was about making sure it didn't happen again.
Making sure it didn't happen again meant it *was* existential given what 'again' would entail.
In any case, there was no realistic possibility of ending the war with anything other than total German surrender by that point anyway.
In August 1945, the Japanese War Cabinet met.
- after Nagasaki and Hiroshima - America had stopped producing submarines because Japan didn’t have many ships left to sink - Trade had stopped because the submarines and aerial mining had stopped Japanese merchant shipping almost completely - Russia had entered the war and was doing to the Imperial Japanese Army what chainsaws do to cheese. - The Allies had supremacy to the point of battleships were bombarding the Japanese coast. - A famine was coming that winter. Too many men away in the army, and the rice crop was failing. No imports (see trade stopping).
The war cabinet split 3-3 on continuing the war. The plan to continue the war was to recruit every civilian into the army - literally armed with bamboo spears. Then banzai charge, repeatedly, the Allies when they invaded. when the food ran out, then the civilians would get nothing - all the remaining food would go to the army…
The Emperor cast a deciding vote for peace. At which the army tried a coup, which nearly succeeded. It only failed because it was interrupted by an American air raid.
FWIW, I think different standards apply to scuzz and regular commuters.
You try pulling a fare-dodge in a suit and you'll be far more likely to be prosecuted and with graver consequences as a "normal" person for whom a clean record is essential for one's livelihood.
Two-tier policing again.
Of a kind that there has always been.
When we were doing the loft conversion, the site was visited by building control, a few times.
A few doors down, the usual dodgy outfit, with unsafe scaffolding visible from the road, was unvisited.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
We seem to have arrived at Jan 1945. Germany (Gaza) is a ruin, and any normal state would have surrendered ages ok. But they do not. The Nazis (Hamas) have a tight stranglehold and will never surrender. How then do the Allies (Israel) win?
The losers, as always in war, are the poor bloody civilians.
Well said.
We insisted upon unconditional surrender of the Nazis to end the war. Israel should do the same and we should be a steadfast ally of theirs until that happens and make it clear the war only ends when Hamas surrenders.
The mealy-mouthed talk of peace without doing anything is the worst of both worlds falling between the stools of siding with Hamas or siding with Israel. We don't need a ceasefire, we need a victory and the end of war.
At least it's not as bad as Japan 1945. No matter how bad it gets, Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza City and Khan Younis.
Saying Israel isn't going to nuke Gaza is rather damning with faint praise.
It's an existential battle for them like it was for us in 1945.
America was right to bomb Japan. Israel is fighting a horrific war better than we did.
You say this with some regularity. It remains bollocks. The fight against Hamas in Gaza is not an existential battle for Israel. Israel has complete military domination over Gaza. Israel is not going to cease to exist,
Here’s proof that it’s not an existential battle. Israel has diverted significant resources to bombing and invading parts of Syria despite no immediate threat and positive words wanting peace coming from the new Syrian administration. Israel has said they’ve done much of this to protect the Syrian Druze population. Were Israel really in an existential battle in Gaza, they wouldn’t have capacity to go into Syria. Israel is, if in a subtler manner than Putin, invading its neighbours for territorial gain.
The US in 1945 did not control Japan. Israel controls Gaza. They should do to Gaza what we did to West Germany: hand it back to the local population after a few years.
If we're being honest, by 1945, it wasn't existential for us or the Americans.
Not saying that makes what Israel is doing okay, but what happened at the end of WW2 was about making sure it didn't happen again.
Making sure WW2 (and WW1, the war it was hoped would end all wars) never happened again included the establishment of pan-national and global institutions such as Nato, the ECSC/EEC/EU, the Council of Europe, the ECJ, the ECHR, the ICC, the United Nations, the WTO and various other bodies which recently seem to be falling out of favour, both here and in America.
Because they're as useless as the League of Nations.
The track record of the UN’s contributions to world peace, while far from perfect, are clearly much better than the League’s.
Not convinced of that; the track record of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction is much better.
Yes, no nuclear power has gone to war since the 50s (excluding Russia, of course, and America and Britain and Israel and India and Pakistan). China maybe?
Nuclear weapons prevent the nuclear state from being invaded, not invading others who don't have nukes.
Nuclear weapons mean none of the states you name have been invaded, with the potential exception of Ukraine going into Russia's border territory during a war Russia chose to start.
The UN has done jack shit to prevent any of those wars that have happened.
Invasions of countries with nuclear weapons:
Yom Kippur War, 1973 Argentine invasion of the Falklands, 1982 Siachen conflict, 1984 Kargil War, 1999 October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, 2023
Quite a miniscule list of relatively conflicts compared to the list of invasions of non-nuclear states. Or those same states pre-nuclear weapons.
And none of those conflicts was prevented by the UN.
The UN has had as much success as the League of Nations in preventing war. Nuclear weapons have been a bigger deterrent.
You said there were no cases, except Ukraine's invasion of some Russian territory. You were wrong.
No conflict that happened was prevented, obviously. That's a tautology.
Yes, there have been some relatively minor cases happening, I accept that and was wrong to say none.
Not as wrong as you were to say the UN has a decent track record.
I'd like to know of any potential conflict that was avoided due to the UN, as opposed to being avoided due to deterrence.
I said the UN had a better track record than the League of Nations. This is not difficult given how poor the League did! As for UN successes, the UN claims:
"UN peacekeeping expanded in the 1990s, as the end of the Cold War created new opportunities to end civil wars through negotiated peace settlements. Many conflicts ended, either through direct UN mediation, or through the efforts of others acting with UN support. Countries assisted included El Salvador, Guatemala, Namibia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Tajikistan, and Burundi. In the late nineties, continuing crises led to new operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Timor Leste, Sierra Leone and Kosovo." https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/peace-and-security
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
No I do not think they're acceptable and have said so.
No, Israel can't transition to an anti-insurgency campaign since neither objective has been achieved yet. Hamas has not been destroyed/surrendered, and the hostages are not free.
If Hamas surrenders unconditionally and the hostages are freed, then at that point anti-insurgency would be more appropriate.
Israel has in the past offered the Palestinians an alternative but the alternative has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
There'd be a sovereign Palestinian state today had Arafat not rejected it in 2000.
And then only a few years later Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza entirely, removing all settlements, but then Hamas took over.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
No I do not think they're acceptable and have said so.
No, Israel can't transition to an anti-insurgency campaign since neither objective has been achieved yet. Hamas has not been destroyed/surrendered, and the hostages are not free.
If Hamas surrenders unconditionally and the hostages are freed, then at that point anti-insurgency would be more appropriate.
Israel has in the past offered the Palestinians an alternative but the alternative has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
There'd be a sovereign Palestinian state today had Arafat not rejected it in 2000.
And then only a few years later Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza entirely, removing all settlements, but then Hamas took over.
You can lead a horse to water.
The majority of the Gazan population was not even alive in 2000. Stop blaming children for the sins of the fathers.
Why can't Israel transition to an anti-insurgency campaign as a better way of achieving its objectives? It's not like their current approach is working. The definition of insanity and all that.
Is it acceptable that people who keep saying unacceptable things are still in the Israeli government?
Real identity of Diane killer 'was known on estates'
The real identity of the man who brutally murdered Diane Sindall was known by people on the estates in Birkenhead, a charity set up in her memory has claimed.
It costs £16 to buy a one day travel card in London, and then you see multiple people barging through the barriers. No wonder people are furious. The TFL employees just stand there, watching it happen in front of their noses. I can understand why they don't challenge the criminals, in case they have weapons.
Indeed. It’s an obvious and dangerous erosion of the social contract. Why should ANYONE be law abiding - and pay their fares, and buy their shopping - when they daily see people blatantly dodging the costs of both and the state refusing to act
This is broken windows theory. It’s true and it’s obvious. If Starmer wants a second term he needs to get to grips with this. Scuzz Nation. The petty crime and the litter. The graffiti and the grift
It’s also relatively low hanging fruit in our difficult times. Change the law so that fare dodgers and shoplifters face hefty punishment and they can be stopped with force. Make an example of several hundred of them - this is, after all, what Starmer did with several hundred post Southport protestors. This is what he’s good at
Guaranteed people will stop once they see that doing it can be extremely painful
This alone could lift Starmer by 5 points in the polls over a few years
I think you'll get more out if an article on shoplifting than fare dodging. It's probably the lowest rate it's ever been with the introduction of the gates? It's about 4 times higher on other metro systems like New York.
Apparently TfL spent £22 million on more security and enforcement, and recouped £1.3 million. That's not a good use of your money.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
No I do not think they're acceptable and have said so.
No, Israel can't transition to an anti-insurgency campaign since neither objective has been achieved yet. Hamas has not been destroyed/surrendered, and the hostages are not free.
If Hamas surrenders unconditionally and the hostages are freed, then at that point anti-insurgency would be more appropriate.
Israel has in the past offered the Palestinians an alternative but the alternative has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
There'd be a sovereign Palestinian state today had Arafat not rejected it in 2000.
And then only a few years later Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza entirely, removing all settlements, but then Hamas took over.
You can lead a horse to water.
The majority of the Gazan population was not even alive in 2000. Stop blaming children for the sins of the fathers.
Why can't Israel transition to an anti-insurgency campaign as a better way of achieving its objectives? It's not like their current approach is working. The definition of insanity and all that.
Is it acceptable that people who keep saying unacceptable things are still in the Israeli government?
The current approach is working. Its gruesome, but this week they got Muhammed Sinwar it seems, and countless other Hamas leaders have been got since this conflict began.
It would be insanity to return to a ceasefire before Hamas are eliminated. The conflict is working and needs to be amped up to eliminate Hamas once and for all, just as the Tamil Tigers were eliminated in Sri Lanka.
Once Hamas are gone, then maybe peace may be an option. And until they are, do you believe in asylum or should we discard that as no longer appropriate for armed conflicts?
“Honestly I am becoming radicalised by watching fully grown adults - adults - push through the ticket barriers on the tube while I pay 6 quid a day to get to and from work. This is not how a functioning good quality society is meant to work.”
I’ve not witnessed this. Shoplifting yes, fare-dodging no
Any other PB-ers?
Family member works the gate at a MLS and has done for 7 years. They are now blatantly saying they won’t pay. Numbers of non payers reported each day to HQ. Sometimes police come for an hour but go again and the process repeats.
Issue comes back to lack of police presence plus courts.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
No I do not think they're acceptable and have said so.
No, Israel can't transition to an anti-insurgency campaign since neither objective has been achieved yet. Hamas has not been destroyed/surrendered, and the hostages are not free.
If Hamas surrenders unconditionally and the hostages are freed, then at that point anti-insurgency would be more appropriate.
Israel has in the past offered the Palestinians an alternative but the alternative has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
There'd be a sovereign Palestinian state today had Arafat not rejected it in 2000.
And then only a few years later Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza entirely, removing all settlements, but then Hamas took over.
You can lead a horse to water.
The majority of the Gazan population was not even alive in 2000. Stop blaming children for the sins of the fathers.
Why can't Israel transition to an anti-insurgency campaign as a better way of achieving its objectives? It's not like their current approach is working. The definition of insanity and all that.
Is it acceptable that people who keep saying unacceptable things are still in the Israeli government?
The current approach is working. Its gruesome, but this week they got Muhammed Sinwar it seems, and countless other Hamas leaders have been got since this conflict began.
It would be insanity to return to a ceasefire before Hamas are eliminated. The conflict is working and needs to be amped up to eliminate Hamas once and for all, just as the Tamil Tigers were eliminated in Sri Lanka.
Once Hamas are gone, then maybe peace may be an option. And until they are, do you believe in asylum or should we discard that as no longer appropriate for armed conflicts?
You said Israel's objectives were the return of hostages and Hamas' surrender. The current strategy is not delivering either of those. More hostages were returned by negotiation.
I believe in asylum when needed. Asylum shouldn't be needed. Israel does not have to repeatedly flatten Gaza. That is a choice made by a corrupt Prime Minister trying to put off his own downfall, supported by ultra-nationalists who want to ethnically cleanse or worse Palestinian territories.
scoop: Vance and Rubio are scheduled to attend the inaugural mass of Pope Leo XIV — the first American leader of the Roman Catholic Church — on Sunday at the Vatican.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Killing 2 million civilians is a bit of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater solution.
I don't believe anyone is supporting Hamas. Some are just a little queasy that in order to resolve the Hamas problem we are looking at incredible levels of collateral damage.
FFS is it possible to turn on the news without seeing Trump.
No one gives a flying fxck what he’s doing in the Middle East .
What Trump is doing in the Middle East is even more important than the Eurovision semifinals. He is contributing towards world peace, and also taking a massive bung. So pro- or anti-Trump, this really does matter.
The Saudis and Qataris seem to be even better at dickriding him than SKS. Look and learn, Canada.
You are right however not sure the electorate of Canada, yet alone the UK, are up for buying Trump a 747 and $200b of other planes from Boeing.
Saudi and Qatar need to give precisely zero fucks about what the people think.
How do they ever get 160 planes to over 200 billion, ar ethey making them of 24 carat gold. Load of absolute bollox.
It costs £16 to buy a one day travel card in London, and then you see multiple people barging through the barriers. No wonder people are furious. The TFL employees just stand there, watching it happen in front of their noses. I can understand why they don't challenge the criminals, in case they have weapons.
Indeed. It’s an obvious and dangerous erosion of the social contract. Why should ANYONE be law abiding - and pay their fares, and buy their shopping - when they daily see people blatantly dodging the costs of both and the state refusing to act
This is broken windows theory. It’s true and it’s obvious. If Starmer wants a second term he needs to get to grips with this. Scuzz Nation. The petty crime and the litter. The graffiti and the grift
It’s also relatively low hanging fruit in our difficult times. Change the law so that fare dodgers and shoplifters face hefty punishment and they can be stopped with force. Make an example of several hundred of them - this is, after all, what Starmer did with several hundred post Southport protestors. This is what he’s good at
Guaranteed people will stop once they see that doing it can be extremely painful
This alone could lift Starmer by 5 points in the polls over a few years
People who take taxis/ubers everywhere won't know about it, except indirectly.
FWIW, I think different standards apply to scuzz and regular commuters.
You try pulling a fare-dodge in a suit and you'll be far more likely to be prosecuted and with graver consequences as a "normal" person for whom a clean record is essential for one's livelihood.
Two-tier policing again.
Yes and they would have to pay fine rather than the state paying it for the slackers
“Honestly I am becoming radicalised by watching fully grown adults - adults - push through the ticket barriers on the tube while I pay 6 quid a day to get to and from work. This is not how a functioning good quality society is meant to work.”
I’ve not witnessed this. Shoplifting yes, fare-dodging no
Any other PB-ers?
Family member works the gate at a MLS and has done for 7 years. They are now blatantly saying they won’t pay. Numbers of non payers reported each day to HQ. Sometimes police come for an hour but go again and the process repeats.
Issue comes back to lack of police presence plus courts.
“Honestly I am becoming radicalised by watching fully grown adults - adults - push through the ticket barriers on the tube while I pay 6 quid a day to get to and from work. This is not how a functioning good quality society is meant to work.”
I’ve not witnessed this. Shoplifting yes, fare-dodging no
Any other PB-ers?
Family member works the gate at a MLS and has done for 7 years. They are now blatantly saying they won’t pay. Numbers of non payers reported each day to HQ. Sometimes police come for an hour but go again and the process repeats.
Issue comes back to lack of police presence plus courts.
Pic of the day
Shame about the "Small business" schtick at the end. Also not ok to steal from a large one.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Strictly speaking, they don't need to slaughter 2 million, only the breeding population of one sex.
“Honestly I am becoming radicalised by watching fully grown adults - adults - push through the ticket barriers on the tube while I pay 6 quid a day to get to and from work. This is not how a functioning good quality society is meant to work.”
I’ve not witnessed this. Shoplifting yes, fare-dodging no
Any other PB-ers?
Family member works the gate at a MLS and has done for 7 years. They are now blatantly saying they won’t pay. Numbers of non payers reported each day to HQ. Sometimes police come for an hour but go again and the process repeats.
Issue comes back to lack of police presence plus courts.
Pic of the day
TfL can prosecute for breach of railway bye laws itself, it doesn't need the police to do it
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.
Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.
Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.
Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.
Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.
However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.
* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.
When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.
Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?
That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.
If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference. 2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not? 3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Do you think the comments by multiple members of the current Israeli government calling for annexation, ethnic cleansing and genocide are acceptable?
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
No I do not think they're acceptable and have said so.
No, Israel can't transition to an anti-insurgency campaign since neither objective has been achieved yet. Hamas has not been destroyed/surrendered, and the hostages are not free.
If Hamas surrenders unconditionally and the hostages are freed, then at that point anti-insurgency would be more appropriate.
Israel has in the past offered the Palestinians an alternative but the alternative has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
There'd be a sovereign Palestinian state today had Arafat not rejected it in 2000.
And then only a few years later Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza entirely, removing all settlements, but then Hamas took over.
You can lead a horse to water.
The majority of the Gazan population was not even alive in 2000. Stop blaming children for the sins of the fathers.
Why can't Israel transition to an anti-insurgency campaign as a better way of achieving its objectives? It's not like their current approach is working. The definition of insanity and all that.
Is it acceptable that people who keep saying unacceptable things are still in the Israeli government?
The current approach is working. Its gruesome, but this week they got Muhammed Sinwar it seems, and countless other Hamas leaders have been got since this conflict began.
It would be insanity to return to a ceasefire before Hamas are eliminated. The conflict is working and needs to be amped up to eliminate Hamas once and for all, just as the Tamil Tigers were eliminated in Sri Lanka.
Once Hamas are gone, then maybe peace may be an option. And until they are, do you believe in asylum or should we discard that as no longer appropriate for armed conflicts?
You said Israel's objectives were the return of hostages and Hamas' surrender. The current strategy is not delivering either of those. More hostages were returned by negotiation.
I believe in asylum when needed. Asylum shouldn't be needed. Israel does not have to repeatedly flatten Gaza. That is a choice made by a corrupt Prime Minister trying to put off his own downfall, supported by ultra-nationalists who want to ethnically cleanse or worse Palestinian territories.
The current strategy is demolishing Hamas and putting them under pressure to release hostages, pressure that led to the last lot being released.
I absolutely think the model of Sri Lanka is one to be emulated. It worked.
To compare NI to Gaza shows you to be deeply unserious. The IRA were never as nihilistic as Hamas.
Israel does have to flatten Gaza to eliminate Hamas as you have no credible, serious alternatives that result in the elimination of Hamas, and Hamas have embedded themselves throughout Gaza even in hospitals.
If asylum is not relevant for Palestinians, it never is, and we can repeal the laws permitting it. But you don't believe that, do you?
"The Biden cover-up The extent of the president’s decline was concealed by his desperate team. The reality was even worse than it seemed. By Freddie Hayward
We now know Biden was senile during his presidency. He would fail to recognise decades-old acquaintances, or freeze with his mouth agape. His annual exam suspiciously did not include a cognitive test. Aides gave him black Hoka trainers to straighten his gait and began walking beside him to his helicopter in order to literally catch him if he tripped. Congressional Democrats left meetings with him thinking of their parents with dementia. Around Thanksgiving, Biden was handed cue-cards in case he was asked what he was thankful for. His team debated pushing him around in a wheelchair and laid down fluorescent tape to guide him through parties with few people. Like puppeteers, they used contraptions to bring him to life."
“Honestly I am becoming radicalised by watching fully grown adults - adults - push through the ticket barriers on the tube while I pay 6 quid a day to get to and from work. This is not how a functioning good quality society is meant to work.”
I’ve not witnessed this. Shoplifting yes, fare-dodging no
Any other PB-ers?
Family member works the gate at a MLS and has done for 7 years. They are now blatantly saying they won’t pay. Numbers of non payers reported each day to HQ. Sometimes police come for an hour but go again and the process repeats.
Issue comes back to lack of police presence plus courts.
Pic of the day
TfL can prosecute for breach of railway bye laws itself, it doesn't need the police to do it
You can bring a private prosecution - no one needs to give you permission, to do so.
This is where it gets difficult. If they don't need asylum, send them back home. If they can't go home, then maybe they do need asylum.
Trouble is, no-one wants to admit Britain is the best country in the world, so deporting anyone means sending them to somewhere worse.
It's a very silly idea. The hope of these people is that they will get asylum in the UK, or abscond whilst waiting. This does absolutely nothing to quench that hope. It shouldn't have even made it past the first person suggesting it in a meeting.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/may/15/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-economy-nhs-kemi-badenoch-uk-politics-live-news-updates
Farage wins an election and the asylum seeker 5* hotels all collapse in a heap in under a fortnight. It's Thursday, where's my polling card?
Cuts fare dodging and helps “our NHS” by encouraging people to lose weight so they don’t have to go to the gate of shame.
Trouble is, no-one wants to admit Britain is the best country in the world, so deporting anyone means sending them to somewhere worse.
And none of those conflicts was prevented by the UN.
The UN has had as much success as the League of Nations in preventing war. Nuclear weapons have been a bigger deterrent.
Saudi and Qatar need to give precisely zero fucks about what the people think.
You try pulling a fare-dodge in a suit and you'll be far more likely to be prosecuted and with graver consequences as a "normal" person for whom a clean record is essential for one's livelihood.
No conflict that happened was prevented, obviously. That's a tautology.
Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.
There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:
1: Hamas surrenders - my preference.
2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not?
3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.
I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Not as wrong as you were to say the UN has a decent track record.
I'd like to know of any potential conflict that was avoided due to the UN, as opposed to being avoided due to deterrence.
- after Nagasaki and Hiroshima
- America had stopped producing submarines because Japan didn’t have many ships left to sink
- Trade had stopped because the submarines and aerial mining had stopped Japanese merchant shipping almost completely
- Russia had entered the war and was doing to the Imperial Japanese Army what chainsaws do to cheese.
- The Allies had supremacy to the point of battleships were bombarding the Japanese coast.
- A famine was coming that winter. Too many men away in the army, and the rice crop was failing. No imports (see trade stopping).
The war cabinet split 3-3 on continuing the war. The plan to continue the war was to recruit every civilian into the army - literally armed with bamboo spears. Then banzai charge, repeatedly, the Allies when they invaded. when the food ran out, then the civilians would get nothing - all the remaining food would go to the army…
The Emperor cast a deciding vote for peace. At which the army tried a coup, which nearly succeeded. It only failed because it was interrupted by an American air raid.
When we were doing the loft conversion, the site was visited by building control, a few times.
A few doors down, the usual dodgy outfit, with unsafe scaffolding visible from the road, was unvisited.
There are other ways to avoid collateral damage. Israel could stop repeatedly re-invading and flattening Gaza and transition to an anti-insurgency/terrorism campaign. Israel could offer the Palestinians an alternative to perpetual subjugation and possible genocide.
"UN peacekeeping expanded in the 1990s, as the end of the Cold War created new opportunities to end civil wars through negotiated peace settlements. Many conflicts ended, either through direct UN mediation, or through the efforts of others acting with UN support. Countries assisted included El Salvador, Guatemala, Namibia, Cambodia, Mozambique, Tajikistan, and Burundi. In the late nineties, continuing crises led to new operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Timor Leste, Sierra Leone and Kosovo." https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/peace-and-security
Hegre et al. (2019) argue for the success of several peacekeeping operations: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/700203 Kathman et al. (2019) argue similarly: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022002718817104
Grigorescu (2005) offers a direct comparison between the League and the UN: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27800552
No, Israel can't transition to an anti-insurgency campaign since neither objective has been achieved yet. Hamas has not been destroyed/surrendered, and the hostages are not free.
If Hamas surrenders unconditionally and the hostages are freed, then at that point anti-insurgency would be more appropriate.
Israel has in the past offered the Palestinians an alternative but the alternative has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
There'd be a sovereign Palestinian state today had Arafat not rejected it in 2000.
And then only a few years later Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza entirely, removing all settlements, but then Hamas took over.
You can lead a horse to water.
Why can't Israel transition to an anti-insurgency campaign as a better way of achieving its objectives? It's not like their current approach is working. The definition of insanity and all that.
Is it acceptable that people who keep saying unacceptable things are still in the Israeli government?
“For us, living or dying is not the important thing,” Goto Dengo says.
“Hey! Tell me something I didn’t fucking already know!” Shaftoe says. “Even winning battles isn’t important to you. Is it?”
Goto Dengo looks the other way, shamefaced.
“Haven’t you guys figured out yet that banzai charges DON’T FUCKING WORK?”
“All of the people who learned that were killed in banzai charges,” Goto Dengo says
“For us, living or dying is not the important thing,” Goto Dengo says.
“Hey! Tell me something I didn’t fucking already know!” Shaftoe says. “Even winning battles isn’t important to you. Is it?”
Goto Dengo looks the other way, shamefaced.
“Haven’t you guys figured out yet that banzai charges DON’T FUCKING WORK?”
“All of the people who learned that were killed in banzai charges,” Goto Dengo says
Apparently TfL spent £22 million on more security and enforcement, and recouped £1.3 million. That's not a good use of your money.
And the BBC ran a report recently on how Hamas is losing its previously ironclad grip on Gaza: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g71lk09npo
It would be insanity to return to a ceasefire before Hamas are eliminated. The conflict is working and needs to be amped up to eliminate Hamas once and for all, just as the Tamil Tigers were eliminated in Sri Lanka.
Once Hamas are gone, then maybe peace may be an option. And until they are, do you believe in asylum or should we discard that as no longer appropriate for armed conflicts?
Issue comes back to lack of police presence plus courts.
Pic of the day
I don't think the model of Sri Lanka is one to be emulated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_during_the_final_stages_of_the_Sri_Lankan_civil_war Closer to home, Northern Ireland is a better model.
I believe in asylum when needed. Asylum shouldn't be needed. Israel does not have to repeatedly flatten Gaza. That is a choice made by a corrupt Prime Minister trying to put off his own downfall, supported by ultra-nationalists who want to ethnically cleanse or worse Palestinian territories.
@KateSullivanDC
scoop: Vance and Rubio are scheduled to attend the inaugural mass of Pope Leo XIV — the first American leader of the Roman Catholic Church — on Sunday at the Vatican.
I don't believe anyone is supporting Hamas. Some are just a little queasy that in order to resolve the Hamas problem we are looking at incredible levels of collateral damage.
What guy exactly?
The brooding, arrogant guy who refuses to take orders.
Self-taught coder who looks down on anyone who's taken a class.
You're probably an atheist or something more contrarian.
You claim to be an anarcho-capitalist,
but you work here and pay taxes.
You've probably read half of Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon
and it's about 50-50 whether you own a snake..."
(Narrator: viewcode has read all of Cryptonomicon and does not own a snake)
https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-recording-reveals-top-tory-knew-of-flaws-in-post-brexit-plan-to-return-illegal-migrants-13367821
Is Chris right? The stats said at least half already claimed asylum in another country?
That would have halved it straight away?
Only half to process?
Only half to put up in hotels?
Only half the costs?
MPs should ask for the actual answer to be put in front of them.
I absolutely think the model of Sri Lanka is one to be emulated. It worked.
To compare NI to Gaza shows you to be deeply unserious. The IRA were never as nihilistic as Hamas.
Israel does have to flatten Gaza to eliminate Hamas as you have no credible, serious alternatives that result in the elimination of Hamas, and Hamas have embedded themselves throughout Gaza even in hospitals.
If asylum is not relevant for Palestinians, it never is, and we can repeal the laws permitting it. But you don't believe that, do you?
"The Biden cover-up
The extent of the president’s decline was concealed by his desperate team. The reality was even worse than it seemed.
By Freddie Hayward
We now know Biden was senile during his presidency. He would fail to recognise decades-old acquaintances, or freeze with his mouth agape. His annual exam suspiciously did not include a cognitive test. Aides gave him black Hoka trainers to straighten his gait and began walking beside him to his helicopter in order to literally catch him if he tripped. Congressional Democrats left meetings with him thinking of their parents with dementia. Around Thanksgiving, Biden was handed cue-cards in case he was asked what he was thankful for. His team debated pushing him around in a wheelchair and laid down fluorescent tape to guide him through parties with few people. Like puppeteers, they used contraptions to bring him to life."
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/book-of-the-day/2025/05/the-biden-cover-up
NEW THREAD