Our outdated planning system has held us back for too long.
Not anymore.
Today we’re announcing a new government-built AI tool that will help planning officers cut red tape, speed up decisions, and unlock homes for hard-working people through our Plan for Change.
Good grief.
Change the law and simplify the red tape or STFU.
This is absurd.
Yes but this helps 'working people'. How can he help working people unless working people are the people he mentions in every new initiative to help working people?
Our outdated planning system has held us back for too long.
Not anymore.
Today we’re announcing a new government-built AI tool that will help planning officers cut red tape, speed up decisions, and unlock homes for hard-working people through our Plan for Change.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
You're never weaker than when you adopt a cause because you think it aligns with leftist causes but don't, because it's not your thing so you shouldn't feel bad about it, have the slightest idea or understand the matter at hand.
Hello Topping. Let me just finish with Bart then we can have a chat if you're still around.
You take your time. Google will help although it's no match for actually having an opinion on any given matter. But sure, go for it.
I have an opinion on you. Want to hear it?
Please don't think you need my consent to post whatever you want about whatever you want.
C'mon, it's simply a question. There's nothing to be scared of. Do you want to hear it?
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
One of the main differences between the two sets of leaders is that the Israeli government does what it can to protect its people. Hamas do the very opposite with their people.
Bibi didn't seem to be particularly interested in the live hostages, and was quite comfortable for them to become collateral damage in his grand plan.
Yep, as ever, it's Israel who are to blame for Hamas invading Israel and taking hostages.
Not distinguishing between Netanyahu and Israel? Rookie error.
You think Netanyahu is to blame for 7 October?
You replied to a post referring to Netanyahu by immediately.conflating him with Israel. In any case I’d imagine someone who conspired to support Hamas and was in ultimate command of Israel’s security on October 7th would have a few questions to answer. Lots of Israelis seem to agree.
Hang on, even if Netanyahu wasn't in charge of Israel, someone else would be having to deal with the hostage situation. My guess is, they would not be begging Hamas to release them and offering to do whatever it takes.
Of course not, but I am surprised Israeli Special Forces were not sent into Gaza to retrieve live hostages on October 8th. I believe that is what the families believed would happen.
Man, why didn’t the Israelis just think of sending in the Special Forces? Seriously would have been so simple grabbing 251 people from unknown locations, all split up, in tunnels, buildings all over a large area of land, guarded like the Crown Jewels.
They would have lost hundreds if not thousands of special forces and loads of palaestinians would still have been killed.
Gaza isn’t Entebbe where they could fly in to deal with a small terrorist force in a secure area. It’s not going into a desert camp to grab one or two hostages.
How about “why didn’t Hamas give up all the hostages early on when it was clear that Israel were coming for the whole of Gaza in revenge?”
Because Hamas are a death cult who couldn't care less how many innocent Gazans die. THe death of Gazans by Israel is a Recruiting Sergeant for Hamas. Why do you people assume a negotiation with Hamas works like a negotiatuion with an elected democracy?
This is true. And round and round it goes. But what is the alternative. Wait for the Gazans to vote out Hamas. Do they actually want to do that? If so then it validates those who say Free Palestine from Hamas, if not, then the war become yet more legitimate.
Fair enough, but you are entering Barty territory where you can't put an acceptable number on collateral deaths until Hamas are destroyed.
Give me a list of wars where you CAN put an acceptable number of collateral deaths, and what that number is for each please?
If you can't for any, why should I for this one?
I don’t think that Palestinian suffering would end, even if Hamas surrendered.
Netanyahu needs a conflict, to deflect from his own incompetence and corruption. He’s now funding groups affiliated with IS, to foment further conflict in Gaza.
Many of his ministers wish to drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza, because they wish to annex those territories, and have no intention of granting civil rights to their inhabitants.
The Israeli government is as keen on war as Hamas is.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
You're never weaker than when you adopt a cause because you think it aligns with leftist causes but don't, because it's not your thing so you shouldn't feel bad about it, have the slightest idea or understand the matter at hand.
Hello Topping. Let me just finish with Bart then we can have a chat if you're still around.
You take your time. Google will help although it's no match for actually having an opinion on any given matter. But sure, go for it.
I have an opinion on you. Want to hear it?
Please don't think you need my consent to post whatever you want about whatever you want.
C'mon, it's simply a question. There's nothing to be scared of. Do you want to hear it?
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
Checks in. Oh it's Israel/Palestine today. Checks out.
Leon is trying his best - and his best is usually good enough - to move things back to more comfortable anti-migrant territory. Perhaps give it a few minutes.
Looks like I’ve been trumped by the Chancellor proving that this is the Worst Government Ever
I didn't realize you were particularly invested in the pensioners winter fuel allowance. There's no Muslim or Migrant angle here as far as I can see.
There's a "My god this government is Fucking Terrible" angle, that's for sure
Utterly shambolic, like a slo-mo Truss
If Truss had had the parliamentary support to save her budget, the economy and the country would be in a far better position.
That's probably true
I think Britain has a pretty stark choice coming, to fend off bankruptcy AND civil unrest
We need to elect a British Milei, who will take an axe to the state, but with Danish Social Democrat policies on migration/asylum. A peaceful but ruthless revolution. This person will have to sweep away the Blob, in its entirety, sack the judges, lawyers, NGOs, the lot
That's the only democratic way out of this mess
Otherwise (unless we are saved by technology) we are going to drown in debt and there will be trouble in t'streets: we will need the IMF to bail us out AND the UN to keep the peace
Checks in. Oh it's Israel/Palestine today. Checks out.
Leon is trying his best - and his best is usually good enough - to move things back to more comfortable anti-migrant territory. Perhaps give it a few minutes.
Looks like I’ve been trumped by the Chancellor proving that this is the Worst Government Ever
I didn't realize you were particularly invested in the pensioners winter fuel allowance. There's no Muslim or Migrant angle here as far as I can see.
There's a "My god this government is Fucking Terrible" angle, that's for sure
Utterly shambolic, like a slo-mo Truss
If Truss had had the parliamentary support to save her budget, the economy and the country would be in a far better position.
That's probably true
I think Britain has a pretty stark choice coming, to fend off bankruptcy AND civil unrest
We need to elect a British Milei, who will take an axe to the state, but with Danish Social Democrat policies on migration/asylum. A peaceful but ruthless revolution. This person will have to sweep away the Blob, in its entirety, sack the judges, lawyers, NGOs, the lot
That's the only democratic way out of this mess
Otherwise (unless we are saved by technology) we are going to drown in debt and there will be trouble in t'streets: we will need the IMF to bail us out AND the UN to keep the peace
A British Millei would result in as much disorder as you're describing.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
Checks in. Oh it's Israel/Palestine today. Checks out.
Leon is trying his best - and his best is usually good enough - to move things back to more comfortable anti-migrant territory. Perhaps give it a few minutes.
Looks like I’ve been trumped by the Chancellor proving that this is the Worst Government Ever
I didn't realize you were particularly invested in the pensioners winter fuel allowance. There's no Muslim or Migrant angle here as far as I can see.
There's a "My god this government is Fucking Terrible" angle, that's for sure
Utterly shambolic, like a slo-mo Truss
If Truss had had the parliamentary support to save her budget, the economy and the country would be in a far better position.
That's probably true
I think Britain has a pretty stark choice coming, to fend off bankruptcy AND civil unrest
We need to elect a British Milei, who will take an axe to the state, but with Danish Social Democrat policies on migration/asylum. A peaceful but ruthless revolution. This person will have to sweep away the Blob, in its entirety, sack the judges, lawyers, NGOs, the lot
That's the only democratic way out of this mess
Otherwise (unless we are saved by technology) we are going to drown in debt and there will be trouble in t'streets: we will need the IMF to bail us out AND the UN to keep the peace
A British Millei would result in as much disorder as you're describing.
Checks in. Oh it's Israel/Palestine today. Checks out.
Leon is trying his best - and his best is usually good enough - to move things back to more comfortable anti-migrant territory. Perhaps give it a few minutes.
Looks like I’ve been trumped by the Chancellor proving that this is the Worst Government Ever
I didn't realize you were particularly invested in the pensioners winter fuel allowance. There's no Muslim or Migrant angle here as far as I can see.
There's a "My god this government is Fucking Terrible" angle, that's for sure
Utterly shambolic, like a slo-mo Truss
Almost all governments have these U-turn episodes every so often. You're exaggerating a bit, I think, with "utterly shambolic". Out of character.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
No.
Let's start with the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
And Israel are entitled to defend themselves according to the rules set out in the Geneva Convention. Starving a civilian population of 2 million people to death, remarkably breaches the rules of war.
Checks in. Oh it's Israel/Palestine today. Checks out.
Leon is trying his best - and his best is usually good enough - to move things back to more comfortable anti-migrant territory. Perhaps give it a few minutes.
Looks like I’ve been trumped by the Chancellor proving that this is the Worst Government Ever
I didn't realize you were particularly invested in the pensioners winter fuel allowance. There's no Muslim or Migrant angle here as far as I can see.
There's a "My god this government is Fucking Terrible" angle, that's for sure
Utterly shambolic, like a slo-mo Truss
If Truss had had the parliamentary support to save her budget, the economy and the country would be in a far better position.
That's probably true
I think Britain has a pretty stark choice coming, to fend off bankruptcy AND civil unrest
We need to elect a British Milei, who will take an axe to the state, but with Danish Social Democrat policies on migration/asylum. A peaceful but ruthless revolution. This person will have to sweep away the Blob, in its entirety, sack the judges, lawyers, NGOs, the lot
That's the only democratic way out of this mess
Otherwise (unless we are saved by technology) we are going to drown in debt and there will be trouble in t'streets: we will need the IMF to bail us out AND the UN to keep the peace
A British Millei would result in as much disorder as you're describing.
Milei hasn't, in Argentina
He hasn't swept away the entire judiciary, though, and civil society.
The British judiciary and state is also far stronger than in Argentina.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
One of the main differences between the two sets of leaders is that the Israeli government does what it can to protect its people. Hamas do the very opposite with their people.
Bibi didn't seem to be particularly interested in the live hostages, and was quite comfortable for them to become collateral damage in his grand plan.
Yep, as ever, it's Israel who are to blame for Hamas invading Israel and taking hostages.
Not distinguishing between Netanyahu and Israel? Rookie error.
You think Netanyahu is to blame for 7 October?
You replied to a post referring to Netanyahu by immediately.conflating him with Israel. In any case I’d imagine someone who conspired to support Hamas and was in ultimate command of Israel’s security on October 7th would have a few questions to answer. Lots of Israelis seem to agree.
Hang on, even if Netanyahu wasn't in charge of Israel, someone else would be having to deal with the hostage situation. My guess is, they would not be begging Hamas to release them and offering to do whatever it takes.
Of course not, but I am surprised Israeli Special Forces were not sent into Gaza to retrieve live hostages on October 8th. I believe that is what the families believed would happen.
Man, why didn’t the Israelis just think of sending in the Special Forces? Seriously would have been so simple grabbing 251 people from unknown locations, all split up, in tunnels, buildings all over a large area of land, guarded like the Crown Jewels.
They would have lost hundreds if not thousands of special forces and loads of palaestinians would still have been killed.
Gaza isn’t Entebbe where they could fly in to deal with a small terrorist force in a secure area. It’s not going into a desert camp to grab one or two hostages.
How about “why didn’t Hamas give up all the hostages early on when it was clear that Israel were coming for the whole of Gaza in revenge?”
Because Hamas are a death cult who couldn't care less how many innocent Gazans die. THe death of Gazans by Israel is a Recruiting Sergeant for Hamas. Why do you people assume a negotiation with Hamas works like a negotiatuion with an elected democracy?
This is true. And round and round it goes. But what is the alternative. Wait for the Gazans to vote out Hamas. Do they actually want to do that? If so then it validates those who say Free Palestine from Hamas, if not, then the war become yet more legitimate.
Fair enough, but you are entering Barty territory where you can't put an acceptable number on collateral deaths until Hamas are destroyed.
Give me a list of wars where you CAN put an acceptable number of collateral deaths, and what that number is for each please?
If you can't for any, why should I for this one?
I don’t think that Palestinian suffering would end, even if Hamas surrendered.
Netanyahu needs a conflict, to deflect from his own incompetence and corruption. He’s now funding groups affiliated with IS, to foment further conflict in Gaza.
Many of his ministers wish to drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza, because they wish to annex those territories, and have no intention of granting civil rights to their inhabitants.
The Israeli government is as keen on war as Hamas is.
If Hamas surrenders unconditionally and Israel continues fighting then let's cross that bridge when we get there.
Until then, the first demand has to be the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
Personally I think Israelis would vote, as they often have, for peace were it to be an available option.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
What about Northern Ireland? Or the Basque country? Or North Macedonia? Or the Kurdish region in Iraq? Or even Bosnia?
Because it worked. And Hamas are every bit as vile as the Tigers if not worse, and considerably worse than the IRA or Kurds or anyone else.
How many people were prosecuted for those alleged "crimes"?
If your aim is peace at any cost then why not just let the militarily stronger side win every time? Let the Russians win in Ukraine? Let the Germans have Europe in WW2?
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
And Israel are entitled to defend themselves according to the rules set out in the Geneva Convention. Starving a civilian population of 2 million people to death, remarkably breaches the rules of war.
I don't think they are starving the civilian population to death. Or do you think that is what happened.
Our outdated planning system has held us back for too long.
Not anymore.
Today we’re announcing a new government-built AI tool that will help planning officers cut red tape, speed up decisions, and unlock homes for hard-working people through our Plan for Change.
The government has built an AI tool? I'm sure this will go entirely without a hitch of any sort.
Love to know how the 40 or so different software providers who create planing systems for local authorities are going to integrate a randomly announced AI system.
Also my wife and everyone of a similar age is going to completely hate it for being half baked crap
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
Does it really matter if the white Christian population of England is ethnically displaced? Surely that's just the way of the modern world.
Checks in. Oh it's Israel/Palestine today. Checks out.
Leon is trying his best - and his best is usually good enough - to move things back to more comfortable anti-migrant territory. Perhaps give it a few minutes.
Looks like I’ve been trumped by the Chancellor proving that this is the Worst Government Ever
I didn't realize you were particularly invested in the pensioners winter fuel allowance. There's no Muslim or Migrant angle here as far as I can see.
There's a "My god this government is Fucking Terrible" angle, that's for sure
Utterly shambolic, like a slo-mo Truss
If Truss had had the parliamentary support to save her budget, the economy and the country would be in a far better position.
That's probably true
I think Britain has a pretty stark choice coming, to fend off bankruptcy AND civil unrest
We need to elect a British Milei, who will take an axe to the state, but with Danish Social Democrat policies on migration/asylum. A peaceful but ruthless revolution. This person will have to sweep away the Blob, in its entirety, sack the judges, lawyers, NGOs, the lot
That's the only democratic way out of this mess
Otherwise (unless we are saved by technology) we are going to drown in debt and there will be trouble in t'streets: we will need the IMF to bail us out AND the UN to keep the peace
A British Millei would result in as much disorder as you're describing.
Milei hasn't, in Argentina
He hasn't swept away the entire judiciary, though, and civil society.
The British judiciary and state is also far stronger than in Argentina.
I fear we are about to find out if this is true, and I fear the answer will surprise you, in a bad way
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
Netenyahu doesn't want that. He never has. Hence his open support for Hamas when they were the antagonist faction and his support now for the illegal settlers in the West Bank. He wants the Palestinians wiped out.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
And Israel are entitled to defend themselves according to the rules set out in the Geneva Convention. Starving a civilian population of 2 million people to death, remarkably breaches the rules of war.
I don't think they are starving the civilian population to death. Or do you think that is what happened.
It is what is currently happening. This is why Greta is languishing in an Israeli jail.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
What about Northern Ireland? Or the Basque country? Or North Macedonia? Or the Kurdish region in Iraq? Or even Bosnia?
Because it worked. And Hamas are every bit as vile as the Tigers if not worse, and considerably worse than the IRA or Kurds or anyone else.
How many people were prosecuted for those alleged "crimes"?
If your aim is peace at any cost then why not just let the militarily stronger side win every time? Let the Russians win in Ukraine? Let the Germans have Europe in WW2?
NATO are stronger than Russia.
The Allies were stronger than the Germans.
We fought to win against the Germans, and the Ukrainians with our backing our fighting to win too. Quite right too.
We never set a death toll figure that said "if fatalities cross this figure then we won't fight the Germans anymore." Should we have? And if we shouldn't have, why should Israel in their own existential war?
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
Netenyahu doesn't want that. He never has. Hence his open support for Hamas when they were the antagonist faction and his support now for the illegal settlers in the West Bank. He wants the Palestinians wiped out.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want Netanyahu in prison.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
I hope there can be war crime trials against Azerbaijan. The failure of the international community to act there should not excuse Israel's behaviour now.
Arafat's rejection was a long time ago, and it's questionable how fair an offer it was. Most of the current Palestinian population was born after those events. It's a lousy excuse not to do anything now.
What about we start with Israel following international law? Why is that so difficult?
Like some others on here I though Labour's original WFA move was sensible economics and responsible governance but badly enacted and ill considered in terms of its scope. That made it bad politics.
I actually think the revisions announced today answer most of those criticisms but sadly it will still turn out to be bad politics.
But at least they have mostly got it right in the end so I can't be too crictical of where they have ended up.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
And Israel are entitled to defend themselves according to the rules set out in the Geneva Convention. Starving a civilian population of 2 million people to death, remarkably breaches the rules of war.
I don't think they are starving the civilian population to death. Or do you think that is what happened.
It is what is currently happening. This is why Greta is languishing in an Israeli jail.
It's not what is happening, aid is regularly given out. Though its tough given the corrupt links between many previously existing agencies and Hamas.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is currently distributing aid.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
I hope there can be war crime trials against Azerbaijan. The failure of the international community to act there should not excuse Israel's behaviour now.
Arafat's rejection was a long time ago, and it's questionable how fair an offer it was. Most of the current Palestinian population was born after those events. It's a lousy excuse not to do anything now.
What about we start with Israel following international law? Why is that so difficult?
Because they're in an existential fight for survival and you're demanding they follow "laws" that aren't enforced on anyone else and we didn't follow when fighting for our own survival.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
Netenyahu doesn't want that. He never has. Hence his open support for Hamas when they were the antagonist faction and his support now for the illegal settlers in the West Bank. He wants the Palestinians wiped out.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want Netanyahu in prison.
I do support the defeat of Hamas.
How about you?
You don't support international law, and you don't support the idea of not committing crimes against humanity.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
Netenyahu doesn't want that. He never has. Hence his open support for Hamas when they were the antagonist faction and his support now for the illegal settlers in the West Bank. He wants the Palestinians wiped out.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want Netanyahu in prison.
I do support the defeat of Hamas.
How about you?
I hate the political and military leadership of both sides equally. I want them both to lose.
Unlike you it seems, I also don't hold a Palestinian life to be worth any less than an Israeli one.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
And Israel are entitled to defend themselves according to the rules set out in the Geneva Convention. Starving a civilian population of 2 million people to death, remarkably breaches the rules of war.
I don't think they are starving the civilian population to death. Or do you think that is what happened.
It is what is currently happening. This is why Greta is languishing in an Israeli jail.
I mean you may dismiss the source but according to these guys there is plenty of aid being distributed.
Reopening coal for power is stupid on so many levels. Bad for the environment, expensive, and so backwards-looking as to make me wonder when Farage is going to call for young boys to become chimney sweeps.
It's insane.
Farage is appealing to those stupid idiots who think the past was a better place; that look back longingly to the days of smog and the great stink.
(Having said that, coal mining on a much smaller scale, for non power generation, might be doable. And I am *generally* in favour of steelmaking, especially speciality steels.)
Using our own coal in Drax would probably release less carbon in sum than shipping over and burning American wood pellets.
Do you have figures for that 'probably'? Anyway, Drax is a dead-end idea, designed just to keep the plant running as long as possible. Instead, compare to gas and renewables.
Well, it says that burning wood at Drax releases more CO2 than coal here:
And then you add to that the CO2 released by transporting the wood pellets over the Atlantic, and it seems obvious.
I'm unsure Ember will approve of you using their press release to call for more coal-fired generation.
As for CO2 from sea transport; that's actually *really* efficient compared to land transport. ISTR that the vast majority of CO2 emitted by coal bought in from Germany, was on the trains taking it from dock to the power station, and the ship's CO2 was a small minority.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
We totally won WWII and afaics there is still the odd German or two cutting about over there.
Yes, yes ... WW2.
But back to Israel/Palestine. Given it apparently hasn't been possible for Israel to achieve their official (and limited) war aims in Gaza without sliding towards a genocide, what on earth would a Total Victory for them look like, do we think?
And as for the other way, Total Defeat for Israel, well we know what that could entail, don't we?
No, it doesn't bear thinking about. I'm guessing that despite the posturing you feel the same.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
Netenyahu doesn't want that. He never has. Hence his open support for Hamas when they were the antagonist faction and his support now for the illegal settlers in the West Bank. He wants the Palestinians wiped out.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want Netanyahu in prison.
I do support the defeat of Hamas.
How about you?
You don't support international law, and you don't support the idea of not committing crimes against humanity.
Humanity is an abstract noun. You can’t commit crimes against it.
Our outdated planning system has held us back for too long.
Not anymore.
Today we’re announcing a new government-built AI tool that will help planning officers cut red tape, speed up decisions, and unlock homes for hard-working people through our Plan for Change.
Good grief.
Change the law and simplify the red tape or STFU.
This is absurd.
Yes but this helps 'working people'. How can he help working people unless working people are the people he mentions in every new initiative to help working people?
The absurdity is already with us - AI written documents are summarised by AI. Then the summaries are fed into other summaries.
It's an empire of bullshit and it's expanding rapidly.
Like some others on here I though Labour's original WFA move was sensible economics and responsible governance but badly enacted and ill considered in terms of its scope. That made it bad politics.
I actually think the revisions announced today answer most of those criticisms but sadly it will still turn out to be bad politics.
But at least they have mostly got it right in the end so I can't be too crictical of where they have ended up.
They lost so much political capital because they are utterly useless at political communication. Farage on the other hand, who genuinely doesn't believe in state welfare provision, has played a blinder.
Kemi seems to have two child cap in her sights now. She hasn't had a bad day either.
This Government have made it impossible for themselves or any future Government to tax the ever burgeoning group known as pensioners. Nigel and Kemi like Boris before them have magic money trees, so if we can get this shower out I think we will be OK.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
What about Northern Ireland? Or the Basque country? Or North Macedonia? Or the Kurdish region in Iraq? Or even Bosnia?
Because it worked. And Hamas are every bit as vile as the Tigers if not worse, and considerably worse than the IRA or Kurds or anyone else.
How many people were prosecuted for those alleged "crimes"?
If your aim is peace at any cost then why not just let the militarily stronger side win every time? Let the Russians win in Ukraine? Let the Germans have Europe in WW2?
NATO are stronger than Russia.
The Allies were stronger than the Germans.
We fought to win against the Germans, and the Ukrainians with our backing our fighting to win too. Quite right too.
We never set a death toll figure that said "if fatalities cross this figure then we won't fight the Germans anymore." Should we have? And if we shouldn't have, why should Israel in their own existential war?
The Allies - well actually the UK and its Empire - were not stronger than the Germans in 1940. By your argument we should have just accepted German domination of Europe with all its associated horrors (which we mostly were unaware of at the time) and just let them have their win - for the sake of peace. Indeed we could then have been happily critical of all those horrible resistance terrorists all across Europe.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
I hope there can be war crime trials against Azerbaijan. The failure of the international community to act there should not excuse Israel's behaviour now.
Arafat's rejection was a long time ago, and it's questionable how fair an offer it was. Most of the current Palestinian population was born after those events. It's a lousy excuse not to do anything now.
What about we start with Israel following international law? Why is that so difficult?
Because they're in an existential fight for survival and you're demanding they follow "laws" that aren't enforced on anyone else and we didn't follow when fighting for our own survival.
Israel is not in an existential fight for survival. Israel has had no difficulty flattening Gaza. No-one is occupying Israeli land.
You can tell Israel is not in an existential fight for survival by the fact that they've opened a new front, invading Syria.
If anyone is in an existential fight for survival, it's Palestine.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
I hope there can be war crime trials against Azerbaijan. The failure of the international community to act there should not excuse Israel's behaviour now.
Arafat's rejection was a long time ago, and it's questionable how fair an offer it was. Most of the current Palestinian population was born after those events. It's a lousy excuse not to do anything now.
What about we start with Israel following international law? Why is that so difficult?
This is the dichotomy discussed earlier.
"Most of the Palestinian population was born after those events."
The Palestinians voted Hamas into government in 2006,since when there have been zero elections. So we have two options:
1. Ordinary decent Gazans who supported Hamas in their stated aims have now changed their minds and are suffering from the authoritarian government and only seek an opportunity to overthrow their cruel masters; or 2. Ordinary decent Gazans who supported Hamas in their stated aims still support Hamas in their stated aims.
Hamas remain the government of Gaza. So take your pick.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
I hope there can be war crime trials against Azerbaijan. The failure of the international community to act there should not excuse Israel's behaviour now.
Arafat's rejection was a long time ago, and it's questionable how fair an offer it was. Most of the current Palestinian population was born after those events. It's a lousy excuse not to do anything now.
What about we start with Israel following international law? Why is that so difficult?
Because they're in an existential fight for survival and you're demanding they follow "laws" that aren't enforced on anyone else and we didn't follow when fighting for our own survival.
Like some others on here I though Labour's original WFA move was sensible economics and responsible governance but badly enacted and ill considered in terms of its scope. That made it bad politics.
I actually think the revisions announced today answer most of those criticisms but sadly it will still turn out to be bad politics.
But at least they have mostly got it right in the end so I can't be too crictical of where they have ended up.
They lost so much political capital because they are utterly useless at political communication. Farage on the other hand, who genuinely doesn't believe in state welfare provision, has played a blinder.
Kemi seems to have two child cap in her sights now. She hasn't had a bad day either.
This Government have made it impossible for themselves or any future Government to tax the ever burgeoning group known as pensioners. Nigel and Kemi like Boris before them have magic money trees, so if we can get this shower out I think we will be OK.
Liek I said, bad politics, not least becaue it was badly enacted initially. But that doesn't make the policy bad. State handouts to large groups irrespective of their need is something we should be trying to end. Same goes for any other comprehensive benefits that the Middle Classes enjoy.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
You're never weaker than when you adopt a cause because you think it aligns with leftist causes but don't, because it's not your thing so you shouldn't feel bad about it, have the slightest idea or understand the matter at hand.
Hello Topping. Let me just finish with Bart then we can have a chat if you're still around.
You take your time. Google will help although it's no match for actually having an opinion on any given matter. But sure, go for it.
I have an opinion on you. Want to hear it?
Please don't think you need my consent to post whatever you want about whatever you want.
C'mon, it's simply a question. There's nothing to be scared of. Do you want to hear it?
Quite needy, aren't you, when you're in a corner.
Scared, is the word. Great big ex-soldier on my case. But knees knocking, I stand my ground.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
You're never weaker than when you adopt a cause because you think it aligns with leftist causes but don't, because it's not your thing so you shouldn't feel bad about it, have the slightest idea or understand the matter at hand.
Hello Topping. Let me just finish with Bart then we can have a chat if you're still around.
You take your time. Google will help although it's no match for actually having an opinion on any given matter. But sure, go for it.
I have an opinion on you. Want to hear it?
Please don't think you need my consent to post whatever you want about whatever you want.
C'mon, it's simply a question. There's nothing to be scared of. Do you want to hear it?
Quite needy, aren't you, when you're in a corner.
Scared, is the word. Great big ex-soldier on my case. But knees knocking, I stand my ground.
Last chance. Do you want to hear it?
Oh blimey. Don't make me feel sorry for you. Try to give it something.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
As an aside, when I was younger I wanted to go into tunnelling (*). One thing that amazes me still is that they can drill tunnels for many miles and end up only a few centimetres out of line. Even in ye olden days, where they often dug tunnels from shafts every few hundred yards, and dug small initial drifts instead of the full tunnel, it was amazing.
But the really amazing thing are the maps of mines, e.g. coal. Not only do they show, to apparently quite high accuracy, the position of the workings, but they can also be objects of beauty. And all done manually, without modern stuff like lasers.
(Somewhere I've got a book on surveying for tunnellers, written in Victorian times.)
Incidentally, there's an online official map of all known old coal workings. I particularly like the ones to the west of Buxton in the Peak District, where the hollows in the ground are still well fenced off.
(*) Yes, I wanted to bore as a profession. Now it's just a hobby...
That's a great map. You can see the close correlation with development in and around Edinburgh and the location of old mines. It's quite a big problem for developers.
I've got a good friend currently working 1km below the North Sea. Mad.
Network Rail have a *lot* of parallel-to-the-line routes which could be used for all kinds of beneficial things, but which they keep fenced off. I have a multiuser path that could take me all the way to (mainline) Alfreton Station but which stops half-a-mile short, because Network Rail keep a parallel track fenced off.
So it is necessary to do battle with dual carriageways or dangerous narrow roads, and huge hills (the EMM goes through the flat valley).
So no one uses it to get to the station. The close by area of potential users has about 200k people in it.
But they won't. They choose, as we know, to block up bridges rather than let them be a public benefit. It's all hidden in plain sight.
There are several aspects to this. One is that these parallel routes are often needed for maintenance access, and opening it up to the public *really* inhibits that - as the public don't like 'their' routes being closed. Another is that a few of the public are gits, and Network Rail already has a significant problem with trespass. And if some scrote goes on the railway line and gets killed, then NR gets the blame. Another is cost: opening up that parallel route for use by the public will cost money as well as the inconvenience, and sometimes a fair amount of money - especially if structures need making safe. Another is access: how do you get the public to the beginning of the route at other end, if it is surrounded by private land?
Perhaps in the case you mention it is feasible. Often it is nowhere near as easy as proponents suppose.
I'm not sure on the maintenance point.
ISTM that a lot of places to be maintained are by maintenance peeps travelling down a public road or right of way, and I don't the difference with putting a fence in and creating a (say) Restricted Byway (walking / wheeling / cycling), which the Network Rail people can use.
Not everywhere, but there are enough for it to make a large difference eg to fill gaps in networks.
In the case I mention there is already a multiuser trail in place, with a bit of footpath at the end.
As to how to create a new one, there are powers such as Creation of a PROW by agreement, or by order, under Sections 25 and 26 of the Highways Act 1980. There are also separate provision for creation of cycle paths (which I would have to look up). If necessary CPOs are available. Or (I think) creation of permissive paths under Sustainable Farming arrangements *.
The blocks are Network Rail, and also a cultural squint in Local Highways Authorities where they are quite happy to use CPO to make road wider or traffic islands larger, but never for footpaths or other PROWs. It needs equality implanting in the culture.
I am aware of one exception where a high quality cycleway was created by the Road Builders, but its buried in Laura Laker's book and they only did it because too many cyclists were using the road and they wanted to shift them.
* The Govt are redoing these, and I don't know what will happen yet. This was one of the better things done under BoJo.
I think the 'blocking' by National Rail, as I show above, can be very reasonable from their perspective. But you show part of the point well: "...which the Network Rail people can use." In other words, they become the lesser user. It becomes a cycle path (I'd *much* prefer the emphasis to be multi-user path) that NR can occasionally use. And which people then complain endlessly about NR using.
Having known maintenance bods working for NR subcontractors, the access point is *very* apt. Especially where the route can be used by vehicles.
But put simply: railway lines and people really do not get along well. Especially main lines and busy ones.
It would be like Restricted Byways where there is also a farm access - one way is that there is a locking bollard in the entrance of what then looks like a single track road.
There are also a lot of these as estate roads or dam machinery access roads in the hills, where the only vehicles allowed are water company or land owner.
Follow the railway south, and it comes to Alfreton Station - formerly there was another railway parallel, which is why there is the second tunnel S of the station as well. It's a multiuser path for a few path miles that just *stops* a bit short of where it needs to go. A route to the station from their either side is very difficult for other than men or women in lycra. But I can't shift that without a Govt policy change, or a major local lobby (which - like a piling swivel from Kipling's Naming of Parts - I have not got).
Ah, the old Westhouses depot...
You utterly miss the point. These access tracks alongside old lines are often used by NR/contractors for things other than access: storage of materials ready for nearby works; stabling of road/rail vehicles and other machinery etc. They're a secure location, nearer to potential sites, that they do not need to pay for and which reduces disruption (esp. at night when works are often done) and noise. And if it is used for access, then the fencing between the path and the railway utterly prevents access to the railway when they want to work - without dismantling and reassembling the fencing each night.
I don't know the Westhouses area of Alfreton, so perhaps that's a place it could be done with little difficulty. But many of these tracks are vital for the way NR work. And someone - not NR - needs to pay for it.
Checks in. Oh it's Israel/Palestine today. Checks out.
Leon is trying his best - and his best is usually good enough - to move things back to more comfortable anti-migrant territory. Perhaps give it a few minutes.
Looks like I’ve been trumped by the Chancellor proving that this is the Worst Government Ever
I didn't realize you were particularly invested in the pensioners winter fuel allowance. There's no Muslim or Migrant angle here as far as I can see.
There's a "My god this government is Fucking Terrible" angle, that's for sure
Utterly shambolic, like a slo-mo Truss
If Truss had had the parliamentary support to save her budget, the economy and the country would be in a far better position.
That's probably true
I think Britain has a pretty stark choice coming, to fend off bankruptcy AND civil unrest
We need to elect a British Milei, who will take an axe to the state, but with Danish Social Democrat policies on migration/asylum. A peaceful but ruthless revolution. This person will have to sweep away the Blob, in its entirety, sack the judges, lawyers, NGOs, the lot
That's the only democratic way out of this mess
Otherwise (unless we are saved by technology) we are going to drown in debt and there will be trouble in t'streets: we will need the IMF to bail us out AND the UN to keep the peace
I think a purge is needed in our society, not so much of politics, but of the media. The self-indulgent, ignorant folk whose solution to all things seems to be neo-fascism.
Perhaps ironically, Millei would probably have you all arrested, and is more a libertarian than any member of the Groucho.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
Netenyahu doesn't want that. He never has. Hence his open support for Hamas when they were the antagonist faction and his support now for the illegal settlers in the West Bank. He wants the Palestinians wiped out.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want Netanyahu in prison.
I do support the defeat of Hamas.
How about you?
You don't support international law, and you don't support the idea of not committing crimes against humanity.
Humanity is an abstract noun. You can’t commit crimes against it.
Winston Churchill thought you could. The phrase was first (IIRC) used about the Congo and the activities of King Leopold, there.
Checks in. Oh it's Israel/Palestine today. Checks out.
Leon is trying his best - and his best is usually good enough - to move things back to more comfortable anti-migrant territory. Perhaps give it a few minutes.
Looks like I’ve been trumped by the Chancellor proving that this is the Worst Government Ever
I didn't realize you were particularly invested in the pensioners winter fuel allowance. There's no Muslim or Migrant angle here as far as I can see.
There's a "My god this government is Fucking Terrible" angle, that's for sure
Utterly shambolic, like a slo-mo Truss
If Truss had had the parliamentary support to save her budget, the economy and the country would be in a far better position.
That's probably true
I think Britain has a pretty stark choice coming, to fend off bankruptcy AND civil unrest
We need to elect a British Milei, who will take an axe to the state, but with Danish Social Democrat policies on migration/asylum. A peaceful but ruthless revolution. This person will have to sweep away the Blob, in its entirety, sack the judges, lawyers, NGOs, the lot
That's the only democratic way out of this mess
Otherwise (unless we are saved by technology) we are going to drown in debt and there will be trouble in t'streets: we will need the IMF to bail us out AND the UN to keep the peace
I think a purge is needed in our society, not so much of politics, but of the media. The self-indulgent, ignorant folk whose solution to all things seems to be neo-fascism.
Perhaps ironically, Millei would probably have you all arrested, and is more a libertarian than any member of the Groucho.
Milei is (pretty much) implementing IMF style reform in Argentina. Lumping him in with Trump clown show doesn't make much sense.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
Netenyahu doesn't want that. He never has. Hence his open support for Hamas when they were the antagonist faction and his support now for the illegal settlers in the West Bank. He wants the Palestinians wiped out.
I don't support Netanyahu, I want Netanyahu in prison.
I do support the defeat of Hamas.
How about you?
You don't support international law, and you don't support the idea of not committing crimes against humanity.
Humanity is an abstract noun. You can’t commit crimes against it.
That's going to be awks. We'll have to dig Hermann Goering back up. "Sorry Hermann, there's no such thing as a crime against humanity. Oops"
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
We totally won WWII and afaics there is still the odd German or two cutting about over there.
Yes, yes ... WW2.
But back to Israel/Palestine. Given it apparently hasn't been possible for Israel to achieve their official (and limited) war aims in Gaza without sliding towards a genocide, what on earth would a Total Victory for them look like, do we think?
And as for the other way, Total Defeat for Israel, well we know what that could entail, don't we?
No, it doesn't bear thinking about. I'm guessing that despite the posturing you feel the same.
Toral victory over Hamas can occur the second Hamas surrenders.
Your bitching about Israel just incentivises Hamas not to surrender and encourages the war to continue.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
Because the Arab states attacked Israel, not because Israel rejected the borders.
Reopening coal for power is stupid on so many levels. Bad for the environment, expensive, and so backwards-looking as to make me wonder when Farage is going to call for young boys to become chimney sweeps.
It's insane.
Farage is appealing to those stupid idiots who think the past was a better place; that look back longingly to the days of smog and the great stink.
(Having said that, coal mining on a much smaller scale, for non power generation, might be doable. And I am *generally* in favour of steelmaking, especially speciality steels.)
Using our own coal in Drax would probably release less carbon in sum than shipping over and burning American wood pellets.
Do you have figures for that 'probably'? Anyway, Drax is a dead-end idea, designed just to keep the plant running as long as possible. Instead, compare to gas and renewables.
Well, it says that burning wood at Drax releases more CO2 than coal here:
And then you add to that the CO2 released by transporting the wood pellets over the Atlantic, and it seems obvious.
I'm unsure Ember will approve of you using their press release to call for more coal-fired generation.
As for CO2 from sea transport; that's actually *really* efficient compared to land transport. ISTR that the vast majority of CO2 emitted by coal bought in from Germany, was on the trains taking it from dock to the power station, and the ship's CO2 was a small minority.
Who cares what they approve of? You asked for evidence that burning wood is more carbon intensive than burning coal, and I gave you it.
As for CO2-efficiency in sea transport, that's completely irrelevant if the sea journey isn't necessary at all. The alternative is not coal coming on a road journey from the USA, it's coal that is already here. It still needs transporting to Drax (and from the woodmill on to the boat at the other end) anyway.
Reopening coal for power is stupid on so many levels. Bad for the environment, expensive, and so backwards-looking as to make me wonder when Farage is going to call for young boys to become chimney sweeps.
It's insane.
Farage is appealing to those stupid idiots who think the past was a better place; that look back longingly to the days of smog and the great stink.
(Having said that, coal mining on a much smaller scale, for non power generation, might be doable. And I am *generally* in favour of steelmaking, especially speciality steels.)
If the past means the late 1990s, then it was a better place imo.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
Because the Arab states attacked Israel, not because Israel rejected the borders.
To save time, let's quote Wikipedia's summary:
Some Revisionist Zionists rejected the partition plan as a renunciation of legitimately Jewish national territory.[120] The Irgun Tsvai Leumi, led by Menachem Begin, and the Lehi (also known as the Stern Group or Gang), the two Revisionist-affiliated underground organisations which had been fighting against both the British and Arabs, stated their opposition. Begin warned that the partition would not bring peace because the Arabs would also attack the small state and that "in the war ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence and future."[121] He also stated that "the bisection of our homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized."[122] Begin was sure that the creation of a Jewish state would make territorial expansion possible, "after the shedding of much blood."[123]
Some Post-Zionist scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Arab Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of an Arab Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state.[20][124][125][126][127] Baruch Kimmerling has said that Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them."[19] Many Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.[16][20][19][21][10][128][129]
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
I hope there can be war crime trials against Azerbaijan. The failure of the international community to act there should not excuse Israel's behaviour now.
Arafat's rejection was a long time ago, and it's questionable how fair an offer it was. Most of the current Palestinian population was born after those events. It's a lousy excuse not to do anything now.
What about we start with Israel following international law? Why is that so difficult?
Because they're in an existential fight for survival and you're demanding they follow "laws" that aren't enforced on anyone else and we didn't follow when fighting for our own survival.
Israel is not in an existential fight for survival. Israel has had no difficulty flattening Gaza. No-one is occupying Israeli land.
You can tell Israel is not in an existential fight for survival by the fact that they've opened a new front, invading Syria.
If anyone is in an existential fight for survival, it's Palestine.
Israel is in an existential fight for survival.
The fact they're the stronger party is meaningless if they don't get to use their strength to defeat their enemies whose state aims are to murder every Israeli.
Israel does not have a stated aim to murder every Palestinian. If they wanted to, they could have done that easily, but they're better than the people they're fighting with one arm tied behind their back.
Reopening coal for power is stupid on so many levels. Bad for the environment, expensive, and so backwards-looking as to make me wonder when Farage is going to call for young boys to become chimney sweeps.
It's insane.
Farage is appealing to those stupid idiots who think the past was a better place; that look back longingly to the days of smog and the great stink.
(Having said that, coal mining on a much smaller scale, for non power generation, might be doable. And I am *generally* in favour of steelmaking, especially speciality steels.)
Using our own coal in Drax would probably release less carbon in sum than shipping over and burning American wood pellets.
Do you have figures for that 'probably'? Anyway, Drax is a dead-end idea, designed just to keep the plant running as long as possible. Instead, compare to gas and renewables.
Well, it says that burning wood at Drax releases more CO2 than coal here:
And then you add to that the CO2 released by transporting the wood pellets over the Atlantic, and it seems obvious.
I'm unsure Ember will approve of you using their press release to call for more coal-fired generation.
As for CO2 from sea transport; that's actually *really* efficient compared to land transport. ISTR that the vast majority of CO2 emitted by coal bought in from Germany, was on the trains taking it from dock to the power station, and the ship's CO2 was a small minority.
Who cares what they approve of? You asked for evidence that burning wood is more carbon intensive than burning coal, and I gave you it.
As for CO2-efficiency in sea transport, that's completely irrelevant if the sea journey isn't necessary at all. The alternative is not coal coming on a road journey from the USA, it's coal that is already here. It still needs transporting to Drax (and from the woodmill on to the boat at the other end) anyway.
Burning coal mined in the UK for power isn't really a good use of it given how expensive it is, and how there are other forms of generating power (which don't involve figuratively burning money). Much better to have locally sourced coal for strategic steel production.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
We totally won WWII and afaics there is still the odd German or two cutting about over there.
Yes, yes ... WW2.
But back to Israel/Palestine. Given it apparently hasn't been possible for Israel to achieve their official (and limited) war aims in Gaza without sliding towards a genocide, what on earth would a Total Victory for them look like, do we think?
And as for the other way, Total Defeat for Israel, well we know what that could entail, don't we?
No, it doesn't bear thinking about. I'm guessing that despite the posturing you feel the same.
Toral victory over Hamas can occur the second Hamas surrenders.
Your bitching about Israel just incentivises Hamas not to surrender and encourages the war to continue.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
Israel are committing a mass atrocity on the population of Gaza. As evil as Oct 7th was, it's simply not justified.
And what about its aggressive and expanding occupation of the West Bank? How is this about "the right to live in safety"?
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
Hello from the Albyn hospital in Aberdeen where Mrs RP had her gall bladder out this morning. All went well but she's funny on drugs lol
Hope it is all going well RP. I am driving up to Aberdeen this evening. If you are around over the next few days and want a coffee let me know.
Thanks - that may be tricky as I am dad taxi this week shuttling my about to be 14 year old to the two theatre groups she's in as both are performing this week. Yep, great timing for wifey to have surgery
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
Israel are committing a mass atrocity on the population of Gaza. As evil as Oct 7th was, it's simply not justified.
And what about its aggressive and expanding occupation of the West Bank? How is this about "the right to live in safety"?
Bullshit.
They're fighting a war. They're targeting their enemy.
People die in wars. If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians we'd have 2 million dead by now, but there's no way to fight wars without collateral damage.
Especially wars where one side uses human shields.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
I hope there can be war crime trials against Azerbaijan. The failure of the international community to act there should not excuse Israel's behaviour now.
Arafat's rejection was a long time ago, and it's questionable how fair an offer it was. Most of the current Palestinian population was born after those events. It's a lousy excuse not to do anything now.
What about we start with Israel following international law? Why is that so difficult?
Because they're in an existential fight for survival and you're demanding they follow "laws" that aren't enforced on anyone else and we didn't follow when fighting for our own survival.
Israel is not in an existential fight for survival. Israel has had no difficulty flattening Gaza. No-one is occupying Israeli land.
You can tell Israel is not in an existential fight for survival by the fact that they've opened a new front, invading Syria.
If anyone is in an existential fight for survival, it's Palestine.
Israel is in an existential fight for survival.
The fact they're the stronger party is meaningless if they don't get to use their strength to defeat their enemies whose state aims are to murder every Israeli.
Israel does not have a stated aim to murder every Palestinian. If they wanted to, they could have done that easily, but they're better than the people they're fighting with one arm tied behind their back.
Multiple members of the current Israeli government have proposed a "greater Israel" and the (at best) ethnic cleansing of all the Palestinians. You basically suggested the same upthread!
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
Because the Arab states attacked Israel, not because Israel rejected the borders.
To save time, let's quote Wikipedia's summary:
Some Revisionist Zionists rejected the partition plan as a renunciation of legitimately Jewish national territory.[120] The Irgun Tsvai Leumi, led by Menachem Begin, and the Lehi (also known as the Stern Group or Gang), the two Revisionist-affiliated underground organisations which had been fighting against both the British and Arabs, stated their opposition. Begin warned that the partition would not bring peace because the Arabs would also attack the small state and that "in the war ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence and future."[121] He also stated that "the bisection of our homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized."[122] Begin was sure that the creation of a Jewish state would make territorial expansion possible, "after the shedding of much blood."[123]
Some Post-Zionist scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Arab Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of an Arab Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state.[20][124][125][126][127] Baruch Kimmerling has said that Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them."[19] Many Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.[16][20][19][21][10][128][129]
Get some reading comprehension.
Begin warned that the partition would not bring peace because the Arabs would also attack the small state and that "in the war ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence and future."
Begin was right. Israel accepted partition, the Arabs didn't. Everything that followed is the Arabs fault.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
No, Israel's plans -- and indeed actions -- to grab territory preceded the invasion by surrounding Arab nations. That is very well established history.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
Israel are committing a mass atrocity on the population of Gaza. As evil as Oct 7th was, it's simply not justified.
And what about its aggressive and expanding occupation of the West Bank? How is this about "the right to live in safety"?
Bullshit.
They're fighting a war. They're targeting their enemy.
People die in wars. If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians we'd have 2 million dead by now, but there's no way to fight wars without collateral damage.
Especially wars where one side uses human shields.
Be careful. Don't go too fast. Kinabalu has open in front of him Owen Jones's "A Palestine Primer" on one web page, and is typing responses to PB on another. Give the man time to copy and paste.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
You're never weaker than when you adopt a cause because you think it aligns with leftist causes but don't, because it's not your thing so you shouldn't feel bad about it, have the slightest idea or understand the matter at hand.
Hello Topping. Let me just finish with Bart then we can have a chat if you're still around.
You take your time. Google will help although it's no match for actually having an opinion on any given matter. But sure, go for it.
I have an opinion on you. Want to hear it?
Please don't think you need my consent to post whatever you want about whatever you want.
C'mon, it's simply a question. There's nothing to be scared of. Do you want to hear it?
Quite needy, aren't you, when you're in a corner.
Scared, is the word. Great big ex-soldier on my case. But knees knocking, I stand my ground.
Last chance. Do you want to hear it?
Oh blimey. Don't make me feel sorry for you. Try to give it something.
Ok, I give up. I was going to say something nice too.
In fact, damn it, I will. That insight of yours upthread about Israel thinking it's fighting an "existential war" and we all have to remember that before criticising them for committing atrocities whilst they're about it.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
No, Israel's plans -- and indeed actions -- to grab territory preceded the invasion by surrounding Arab nations. That is very well established history.
Whatever the plans were or weren't, they accepted the Partition Plan. You say they didn't which sadly casts doubt on your good faith discussions about the subject.
Meanwhile, the Arabs manifestly didn't accept the Partition Plan and invaded, and yes, the Israelis did have plans to expand (most notoriously Plan Dalet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet) and the Arab invasion gave them the opportunity to enact them.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
You're never weaker than when you adopt a cause because you think it aligns with leftist causes but don't, because it's not your thing so you shouldn't feel bad about it, have the slightest idea or understand the matter at hand.
Hello Topping. Let me just finish with Bart then we can have a chat if you're still around.
You take your time. Google will help although it's no match for actually having an opinion on any given matter. But sure, go for it.
I have an opinion on you. Want to hear it?
Please don't think you need my consent to post whatever you want about whatever you want.
C'mon, it's simply a question. There's nothing to be scared of. Do you want to hear it?
Quite needy, aren't you, when you're in a corner.
Scared, is the word. Great big ex-soldier on my case. But knees knocking, I stand my ground.
Last chance. Do you want to hear it?
Oh blimey. Don't make me feel sorry for you. Try to give it something.
Ok, I give up. I was going to say something nice too.
In fact, damn it, I will. That insight of yours upthread about Israel thinking it's fighting an "existential war" and we all have to remember that before criticising them for committing atrocities whilst they're about it.
As an aside, when I was younger I wanted to go into tunnelling (*). One thing that amazes me still is that they can drill tunnels for many miles and end up only a few centimetres out of line. Even in ye olden days, where they often dug tunnels from shafts every few hundred yards, and dug small initial drifts instead of the full tunnel, it was amazing.
But the really amazing thing are the maps of mines, e.g. coal. Not only do they show, to apparently quite high accuracy, the position of the workings, but they can also be objects of beauty. And all done manually, without modern stuff like lasers.
(Somewhere I've got a book on surveying for tunnellers, written in Victorian times.)
Incidentally, there's an online official map of all known old coal workings. I particularly like the ones to the west of Buxton in the Peak District, where the hollows in the ground are still well fenced off.
(*) Yes, I wanted to bore as a profession. Now it's just a hobby...
That's a great map. You can see the close correlation with development in and around Edinburgh and the location of old mines. It's quite a big problem for developers.
I've got a good friend currently working 1km below the North Sea. Mad.
Network Rail have a *lot* of parallel-to-the-line routes which could be used for all kinds of beneficial things, but which they keep fenced off. I have a multiuser path that could take me all the way to (mainline) Alfreton Station but which stops half-a-mile short, because Network Rail keep a parallel track fenced off.
So it is necessary to do battle with dual carriageways or dangerous narrow roads, and huge hills (the EMM goes through the flat valley).
So no one uses it to get to the station. The close by area of potential users has about 200k people in it.
But they won't. They choose, as we know, to block up bridges rather than let them be a public benefit. It's all hidden in plain sight.
There are several aspects to this. One is that these parallel routes are often needed for maintenance access, and opening it up to the public *really* inhibits that - as the public don't like 'their' routes being closed. Another is that a few of the public are gits, and Network Rail already has a significant problem with trespass. And if some scrote goes on the railway line and gets killed, then NR gets the blame. Another is cost: opening up that parallel route for use by the public will cost money as well as the inconvenience, and sometimes a fair amount of money - especially if structures need making safe. Another is access: how do you get the public to the beginning of the route at other end, if it is surrounded by private land?
Perhaps in the case you mention it is feasible. Often it is nowhere near as easy as proponents suppose.
I'm not sure on the maintenance point.
ISTM that a lot of places to be maintained are by maintenance peeps travelling down a public road or right of way, and I don't the difference with putting a fence in and creating a (say) Restricted Byway (walking / wheeling / cycling), which the Network Rail people can use.
Not everywhere, but there are enough for it to make a large difference eg to fill gaps in networks.
In the case I mention there is already a multiuser trail in place, with a bit of footpath at the end.
As to how to create a new one, there are powers such as Creation of a PROW by agreement, or by order, under Sections 25 and 26 of the Highways Act 1980. There are also separate provision for creation of cycle paths (which I would have to look up). If necessary CPOs are available. Or (I think) creation of permissive paths under Sustainable Farming arrangements *.
The blocks are Network Rail, and also a cultural squint in Local Highways Authorities where they are quite happy to use CPO to make road wider or traffic islands larger, but never for footpaths or other PROWs. It needs equality implanting in the culture.
I am aware of one exception where a high quality cycleway was created by the Road Builders, but its buried in Laura Laker's book and they only did it because too many cyclists were using the road and they wanted to shift them.
* The Govt are redoing these, and I don't know what will happen yet. This was one of the better things done under BoJo.
I think the 'blocking' by National Rail, as I show above, can be very reasonable from their perspective. But you show part of the point well: "...which the Network Rail people can use." In other words, they become the lesser user. It becomes a cycle path (I'd *much* prefer the emphasis to be multi-user path) that NR can occasionally use. And which people then complain endlessly about NR using.
Having known maintenance bods working for NR subcontractors, the access point is *very* apt. Especially where the route can be used by vehicles.
But put simply: railway lines and people really do not get along well. Especially main lines and busy ones.
It would be like Restricted Byways where there is also a farm access - one way is that there is a locking bollard in the entrance of what then looks like a single track road.
There are also a lot of these as estate roads or dam machinery access roads in the hills, where the only vehicles allowed are water company or land owner.
Follow the railway south, and it comes to Alfreton Station - formerly there was another railway parallel, which is why there is the second tunnel S of the station as well. It's a multiuser path for a few path miles that just *stops* a bit short of where it needs to go. A route to the station from their either side is very difficult for other than men or women in lycra. But I can't shift that without a Govt policy change, or a major local lobby (which - like a piling swivel from Kipling's Naming of Parts - I have not got).
Ah, the old Westhouses depot...
You utterly miss the point. These access tracks alongside old lines are often used by NR/contractors for things other than access: storage of materials ready for nearby works; stabling of road/rail vehicles and other machinery etc. They're a secure location, nearer to potential sites, that they do not need to pay for and which reduces disruption (esp. at night when works are often done) and noise. And if it is used for access, then the fencing between the path and the railway utterly prevents access to the railway when they want to work - without dismantling and reassembling the fencing each night.
I don't know the Westhouses area of Alfreton, so perhaps that's a place it could be done with little difficulty. But many of these tracks are vital for the way NR work. And someone - not NR - needs to pay for it.
I'm don't quite mean that area; I'm looking much closer to Alfreton in the place I'm talking about, but it needs more walking on the ground or by cycle. I know Westhouses well - I used to have a good friend living in the long terrace.
One interesting thing is that the station has a new footbridge-with-lifts, and has been redone to be an open station model. And the accessibility of the station - having done a quick survey - is now about 7/10 as it does not have secure cycle parking (just Sheffield stands) or an accessible loo. But they have done a good job wrt steps, car parking, accessibility of platforms, tactile paving (right patterns in right places) and clarity of colours.
That means there is now a new way across the railway, were access from outside to the other platform to be possible.
Lots of potential if requirements can be met and the organisation barriers fixed.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
Israel are committing a mass atrocity on the population of Gaza. As evil as Oct 7th was, it's simply not justified.
And what about its aggressive and expanding occupation of the West Bank? How is this about "the right to live in safety"?
Bullshit.
They're fighting a war. They're targeting their enemy.
People die in wars. If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians we'd have 2 million dead by now, but there's no way to fight wars without collateral damage.
Especially wars where one side uses human shields.
Be careful. Don't go too fast. Kinabalu has open in front of him Owen Jones's "A Palestine Primer" on one web page, and is typing responses to PB on another. Give the man time to copy and paste.
What I of course meant to say is that Kinabalu is a poster of rare insight and intelligence. Difficult to imagine a sharper brain applying itself to our current problems and global geopolitics.
Reopening coal for power is stupid on so many levels. Bad for the environment, expensive, and so backwards-looking as to make me wonder when Farage is going to call for young boys to become chimney sweeps.
It's insane.
Farage is appealing to those stupid idiots who think the past was a better place; that look back longingly to the days of smog and the great stink.
(Having said that, coal mining on a much smaller scale, for non power generation, might be doable. And I am *generally* in favour of steelmaking, especially speciality steels.)
Using our own coal in Drax would probably release less carbon in sum than shipping over and burning American wood pellets.
Do you have figures for that 'probably'? Anyway, Drax is a dead-end idea, designed just to keep the plant running as long as possible. Instead, compare to gas and renewables.
Well, it says that burning wood at Drax releases more CO2 than coal here:
And then you add to that the CO2 released by transporting the wood pellets over the Atlantic, and it seems obvious.
I'm unsure Ember will approve of you using their press release to call for more coal-fired generation.
As for CO2 from sea transport; that's actually *really* efficient compared to land transport. ISTR that the vast majority of CO2 emitted by coal bought in from Germany, was on the trains taking it from dock to the power station, and the ship's CO2 was a small minority.
Who cares what they approve of? You asked for evidence that burning wood is more carbon intensive than burning coal, and I gave you it.
As for CO2-efficiency in sea transport, that's completely irrelevant if the sea journey isn't necessary at all. The alternative is not coal coming on a road journey from the USA, it's coal that is already here. It still needs transporting to Drax (and from the woodmill on to the boat at the other end) anyway.
Burning coal mined in the UK for power isn't really a good use of it given how expensive it is, and how there are other forms of generating power (which don't involve figuratively burning money). Much better to have locally sourced coal for strategic steel production.
Probably easier, at this point, to transition to Green Steel (using hydrogen for reduction)
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
No, Israel's plans -- and indeed actions -- to grab territory preceded the invasion by surrounding Arab nations. That is very well established history.
They planned how to respond to an imminent attack you mean? Good!
Reopening coal for power is stupid on so many levels. Bad for the environment, expensive, and so backwards-looking as to make me wonder when Farage is going to call for young boys to become chimney sweeps.
It's insane.
Farage is appealing to those stupid idiots who think the past was a better place; that look back longingly to the days of smog and the great stink.
(Having said that, coal mining on a much smaller scale, for non power generation, might be doable. And I am *generally* in favour of steelmaking, especially speciality steels.)
Using our own coal in Drax would probably release less carbon in sum than shipping over and burning American wood pellets.
Do you have figures for that 'probably'? Anyway, Drax is a dead-end idea, designed just to keep the plant running as long as possible. Instead, compare to gas and renewables.
Well, it says that burning wood at Drax releases more CO2 than coal here:
And then you add to that the CO2 released by transporting the wood pellets over the Atlantic, and it seems obvious.
I'm unsure Ember will approve of you using their press release to call for more coal-fired generation.
As for CO2 from sea transport; that's actually *really* efficient compared to land transport. ISTR that the vast majority of CO2 emitted by coal bought in from Germany, was on the trains taking it from dock to the power station, and the ship's CO2 was a small minority.
Who cares what they approve of? You asked for evidence that burning wood is more carbon intensive than burning coal, and I gave you it.
As for CO2-efficiency in sea transport, that's completely irrelevant if the sea journey isn't necessary at all. The alternative is not coal coming on a road journey from the USA, it's coal that is already here. It still needs transporting to Drax (and from the woodmill on to the boat at the other end) anyway.
You just don't get it, do you? Coal for power generation is a stupid idea, for all the reasons given previously. You've tried moving it onto Drax for some reason, but that doesn't stop coal power generation being utterly stupid.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
It does smack of being personal, yes.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'total victory' for either side. It sounds genocidal.
Well for Israel they demand the right to live in safety.
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
Israel are committing a mass atrocity on the population of Gaza. As evil as Oct 7th was, it's simply not justified.
And what about its aggressive and expanding occupation of the West Bank? How is this about "the right to live in safety"?
Bullshit.
They're fighting a war. They're targeting their enemy.
People die in wars. If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians we'd have 2 million dead by now, but there's no way to fight wars without collateral damage.
Especially wars where one side uses human shields.
Ok, well if not killing every last Palestinian man, woman and child is the bar, then they are in the clear, I suppose.
And the hostile expanding occupation of the West Bank - are we fine with this too? Guess we are.
This is quite some legacy of having that schoolfriend.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
No, Israel's plans -- and indeed actions -- to grab territory preceded the invasion by surrounding Arab nations. That is very well established history.
Whatever the plans were or weren't, they accepted the Partition Plan. You say they didn't which sadly casts doubt on your good faith discussions about the subject.
Meanwhile, the Arabs manifestly didn't accept the Partition Plan and invaded, and yes, the Israelis did have plans to expand (most notoriously Plan Dalet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet) and the Arab invasion gave them the opportunity to enact them.
Difficult to entirely blame the Palestinian Arabs for getting cross when they saw an international body solemnly handing over some of their country to, as they probably saw it, European refugees.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is never justified or necessary. Peace is possible, but it will require Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, stop Israel invading its neighbour's territory and stop Israel dehumanising the Palestinian population.
My preference would be for Hamas to surrender and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side by Israel, as the Israelis have repeatedly voted for and offered but was rejected by Arafat.
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
I hope there can be war crime trials against Azerbaijan. The failure of the international community to act there should not excuse Israel's behaviour now.
Arafat's rejection was a long time ago, and it's questionable how fair an offer it was. Most of the current Palestinian population was born after those events. It's a lousy excuse not to do anything now.
What about we start with Israel following international law? Why is that so difficult?
Because they're in an existential fight for survival and you're demanding they follow "laws" that aren't enforced on anyone else and we didn't follow when fighting for our own survival.
Israel is not in an existential fight for survival. Israel has had no difficulty flattening Gaza. No-one is occupying Israeli land.
You can tell Israel is not in an existential fight for survival by the fact that they've opened a new front, invading Syria.
If anyone is in an existential fight for survival, it's Palestine.
Israel is in an existential fight for survival.
The fact they're the stronger party is meaningless if they don't get to use their strength to defeat their enemies whose state aims are to murder every Israeli.
Israel does not have a stated aim to murder every Palestinian. If they wanted to, they could have done that easily, but they're better than the people they're fighting with one arm tied behind their back.
Multiple members of the current Israeli government have proposed a "greater Israel" and the (at best) ethnic cleansing of all the Palestinians. You basically suggested the same upthread!
I proposed Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
If Hamas won't surrender, then refugee status exists for a reason in times of war and the cycle of violence needs to be broken.
Reopening coal for power is stupid on so many levels. Bad for the environment, expensive, and so backwards-looking as to make me wonder when Farage is going to call for young boys to become chimney sweeps.
It's insane.
Farage is appealing to those stupid idiots who think the past was a better place; that look back longingly to the days of smog and the great stink.
(Having said that, coal mining on a much smaller scale, for non power generation, might be doable. And I am *generally* in favour of steelmaking, especially speciality steels.)
If the past means the late 1990s, then it was a better place imo.
If so, a large (not all) part of the decline is down to right-wing 'populists' saying how rubbish things are, and taking the country down routes that did nothing to fix the supposed problems.
But I'm also not sure I agree with you. It may have been better in some ways, but you know people back then were saying how crummy things were (remember the negativity in the dog days of the Major government?) and how things were better thirty years earlier. And how in the 1960s, people were decrying the changes and how things were better in previous decades (though I assume they'd be thinking very narrowly about the 1920s, and not the 1910s or 1930s...)
I look back fondly on the 1980s and 1990s, mainly because I was in my teens and twenties, and everything felt new and shiny. The world was my oyster. But some of my few memories of the 1970s are of my parents trying to drive a nascent business through the economic woes of that time. I only remember seeing two books on my dad's bedside table when I was a kid: one was Samuel Pepys diaries, and the other was one called something like "Coping with inflation."
Reopening coal for power is stupid on so many levels. Bad for the environment, expensive, and so backwards-looking as to make me wonder when Farage is going to call for young boys to become chimney sweeps.
It's insane.
Farage is appealing to those stupid idiots who think the past was a better place; that look back longingly to the days of smog and the great stink.
(Having said that, coal mining on a much smaller scale, for non power generation, might be doable. And I am *generally* in favour of steelmaking, especially speciality steels.)
If the past means the late 1990s, then it was a better place imo.
If so, a large (not all) part of the decline is down to right-wing 'populists' saying how rubbish things are, and taking the country down routes that did nothing to fix the supposed problems.
But I'm also not sure I agree with you. It may have been better in some ways, but you know people back then were saying how crummy things were (remember the negativity in the dog days of the Major government?) and how things were better thirty years earlier. And how in the 1960s, people were decrying the changes and how things were better in previous decades (though I assume they'd be thinking very narrowly about the 1920s, and not the 1910s or 1930s...)
I look back fondly on the 1980s and 1990s, mainly because I was in my teens and twenties, and everything felt new and shiny. The world was my oyster. But some of my few memories of the 1970s are of my parents trying to drive a nascent business through the economic woes of that time. I only remember seeing two books on my dad's bedside table when I was a kid: one was Samuel Pepys diaries, and the other was one called something like "Coping with inflation."
Introduce mandatory frock coats, waistcoats and top hats for railway engineers. Complete with watch chains, for the pocket watches. Otherwise, how will we know that the Oxford to Paddington train is 15 minutes ahead of schedule?
Reopening coal for power is stupid on so many levels. Bad for the environment, expensive, and so backwards-looking as to make me wonder when Farage is going to call for young boys to become chimney sweeps.
It's insane.
Farage is appealing to those stupid idiots who think the past was a better place; that look back longingly to the days of smog and the great stink.
(Having said that, coal mining on a much smaller scale, for non power generation, might be doable. And I am *generally* in favour of steelmaking, especially speciality steels.)
If the past means the late 1990s, then it was a better place imo.
If so, a large (not all) part of the decline is down to right-wing 'populists' saying how rubbish things are, and taking the country down routes that did nothing to fix the supposed problems.
But I'm also not sure I agree with you. It may have been better in some ways, but you know people back then were saying how crummy things were (remember the negativity in the dog days of the Major government?) and how things were better thirty years earlier. And how in the 1960s, people were decrying the changes and how things were better in previous decades (though I assume they'd be thinking very narrowly about the 1920s, and not the 1910s or 1930s...)
I look back fondly on the 1980s and 1990s, mainly because I was in my teens and twenties, and everything felt new and shiny. The world was my oyster. But some of my few memories of the 1970s are of my parents trying to drive a nascent business through the economic woes of that time. I only remember seeing two books on my dad's bedside table when I was a kid: one was Samuel Pepys diaries, and the other was one called something like "Coping with inflation."
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
No, Israel's plans -- and indeed actions -- to grab territory preceded the invasion by surrounding Arab nations. That is very well established history.
Whatever the plans were or weren't, they accepted the Partition Plan. You say they didn't which sadly casts doubt on your good faith discussions about the subject.
Meanwhile, the Arabs manifestly didn't accept the Partition Plan and invaded, and yes, the Israelis did have plans to expand (most notoriously Plan Dalet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet) and the Arab invasion gave them the opportunity to enact them.
Difficult to entirely blame the Palestinian Arabs for getting cross when they saw an international body solemnly handing over some of their country to, as they probably saw it, European refugees.
Yes don't disagree. But you know, there have been Jews kicking around the area for a few thousand years so it's not necessarily the most acute view of it all.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
No, Israel's plans -- and indeed actions -- to grab territory preceded the invasion by surrounding Arab nations. That is very well established history.
They planned how to respond to an imminent attack you mean? Good!
No, they planned how to invade territory and expel its population irrespective of whether the surrounding Arab nations attacked.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
No, Israel's plans -- and indeed actions -- to grab territory preceded the invasion by surrounding Arab nations. That is very well established history.
They planned how to respond to an imminent attack you mean? Good!
No, they planned how to invade territory and expel its population irrespective of whether the surrounding Arab nations attacked.
They had such plans. Which would have remained plans had the Arab nations not invaded. Benny Morris is very good on this and no unquestioning apologist for Israel.
If I was an Israeli living in Israel, I might well support the Israeli government in their attempt to remove the existential threat at my doorstep.
If I was a Palestinian living in Gaza, I might well support Hamas in their attempt to remove the existential threat at my doorstep.
Though I'd like to think my 'support' in both cases would be qualified and mute. I hope...
If as a Palestinian in Gaza you had voted in Hamas then you would presumably be delighted with the sequence of events and the way things have turned out. And would not be complaining.
I see that Hamas chief Sinwar's body has been found, in a tunnel underneath a hospital. With journalists being taken to the tunnels underneath the hospital.
I seem to recall @bondegezou insisting a few days ago that Hamas were actually using a school, not the hospital, a few metres away as the human shields, so that makes it OK by Hamas and a war crime by Israel to strike at him at the hospital where his body has now been found.
Good on Israel for striking another Hamas leader. A shame for the poor, innocent Palestinians who are caught in the middle and being denied refuge from this war by neighbouring states until Hamas surrenders.
The tunnels situation is quite interesting. In such a densely-packed area as Gaza, it's quite possible that a tunnel network starting from (say) a shop, spreads not just downwards, but laterally, to cover an area that encompasses the footprints of both a school and a hospital. They may (or may not) be connected to those buildings (*), but even if they are not connected, they are using those civilian structures as cover.
The idea that "it starts from a school, not the hospital" seems rather simplistic.
But on the other hand: if the network is widespread, how could the journalists know whether they are under the hospital or elsewhere (given the tunnel was apparently accessed through freshly-dug earth just outside the hospital)?
(*) It would make sense for them to be connected, even if not the primary route used.
It is astonishing that some (not you) still try to pretend that hospitals and schools are not used by Hamas for their command and control centres making them both legal targets for the Israelis and putting their own vulnerable people at risk. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Does this excuse what Israel is doing? Of course not. Much of what they are doing are war crimes. But bombing hospitals used in this way is not. It’s merely abhorrent.
Abhorrent but sadly necessary to defeat Hamas.
Too many here don't want to see Hamas defeated, or their unconditional surrender though.
The Tamil Tigers were defeated. There's no reason Hamas can't be. All it takes to end the fighting is for them to surrender.
I think it's bloody stupid and Netanyahu is the wrong person to be Israeli PM.
Israel should be seeking a monopoly of violence, as any state does.
Thank goodness Israel is a democracy and Israelis have had multiple opportunities (checks notes: since 1996) to get rid of Netanyahu, unlike the vile Gazans who bear all responsibilty for Hamas being in power since a single election in 2006.
If I had one wish it would be that someone would drop Bartholomew Roberts in the middle of Gaza with his laptop and see whether he develops into a human being
I want the war to end, with the surrender of Hamas.
That won't happen until the grievances that Hamas feeds off are addressed. Even if Hamas were somehow destroyed, some successor organisation would take its place.
Unlike, say, the Ukraine war, which is basically one man's folly, though he is backed by a band of opportunists and fanatics, the Palestinian cause seems genuinely popular and has survived God knows how many military defeats.
Until Israel offers genuine concessions and deals with the Palestinians as equals, entitled to at least some share in the land the Israelis occupied last century, the tragic, pointless sore will continue to fester.
Israel has repeatedly offered genuine concessions, this century. Such as the agreement spurned by Arafat, or the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza which Hamas then stepped into the void with. Both were before Netanyahu returned to power.
I would love nothing more than to see Hamas defeated, then some Palestinian leadership stepping into the void that settles and ends the fighting. I'm confident most Israelis would vote for that too, if it were an option.
Its not an option until Hamas is eradicated though.
The way Israel is carrying on is more likely to radicalise not only Palestinian opinion but Arab and muslim opinion more widely (as indeed we see in this country).
But I don't accept the premise that a Hamas regime was inevitable; it wasn't in the West Bank (which admittedly wasn't kept under such tight restrictions - though the restrictions followed the Hamas coup rather than vice versa). That the Palestinian leadership have previously rejected genuine offers is their own stupid fault; that doesn't give Israel a green light to make even worse decisions.
Hamas does need removing from Gaza; that's not going to happen militarily unless you remove the population - which seems to be the conclusion Israel has come to: and a a war crime and a crime against humanity. It's also a bloody stupid precedent given that extreme Arab opinion holds much the same view of the presence of the state of Israel.
If peace isn't possible without the population being moved then the population should be moved, which happens regularly in conflicts most recently in Azerbaijan without so much as a murmur from most of the world.
Though hopefully it won't come to that and Hamas can surrender instead, as the Tamil Tigers did.
Do you not see that Bibi is 50% of the problem? Bibi requires this to continue to keep out of an Israeli jail.
How many dead Gazans is acceptable? If the number of dead Palestinians reaches a 7 figure number, does that cross a line?
No dead Palestinians are acceptable after Hamas surrenders unconditionally.
Only a rank antisemite would show the level of disregard for Israeli lives that you show for Palestinians.
The Israeli government's job is to protect the Israeli citizens lives first, and do what it can to minimise innocent Palestinian deaths without compromising the legitimate military objective of defeating Hamas.
If Palestinians die, it is due primarily to Hamas refusing to surrender and other nations refusing refuge to innocents caught in the middle. It is not Israel's primary responsibility to prevent Palestinian deaths. It's primary responsibility is to achieve the military objective first and foremost.
Ps I've said I'd like to see as many innocent Palestinians get refuge from Gaza in Egypt to avoid the war zone, as happens in other conflicts globally. Sadly they're kettled in, something I oppose. Those who support kettling of innocents are showing callous disregard for their lives, not me.
I'm interested in how you've come to such a lopsided view of Israel/Palestine. Your stuff on this topic reads like the ravings of a ultra-zionist zealot who considers Arabs to be inferior to Jews.
But I'm not going with that. It doesn't fit with the rest of your posting which is resolutely anti-racist.
So what I think is, you've got yourself a romantic view of Israel and this, combined with you always liking to take a strong position on something and your somewhat botlike debating style, is what's creating the impression of fanaticism. Fair?
Maybe its personal.
My best friend when I was growing up was a Jew whose grandmother died in the Holocaust.
His family regularly travel to Kibbutz in Israel, one or which was one of the places targeted by Hamas on 7 October.
There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in. There's only one Jewish one on the entire planet. If a Palestinian state can be created that lives side by side with Israel then fantastic, I'd love that.
If they can't? If Hamas won't surrender and one side needs total victory? Then the only Jewish state on the planet takes priority. If they can't live side by side then Egypt or any other Arab state can house the Palestinians.
Some people seem to prioritise a hypothetical Palestinian state over not just the safety of Israelis, but the safety of Palestinians too. I don't.
My Mum grew up in a house with two Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. One of my best friends growing up was Jewish. My best friend now has Israeli citizenship, but has left the country.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
We have to come back to October 7th. At what point do you think the Palestinians (note: it began by Hamas and then ordinary decent Palestinians joined in) would have stopped absent the IDF and the kibbutz defence teams.
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
The nascent Israel also rejected the 1948 UN plan.
Nope. That is wrong.
Israel had a war aim of invading more territory than the 1948 plan gave them, and they did just that. Today's Israel does not follow the 1948 (proposed) border!
You see how the narrative is often designed to be anti-Israel. Even by such a stickler to detail as I have no doubt you are.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
No, Israel's plans -- and indeed actions -- to grab territory preceded the invasion by surrounding Arab nations. That is very well established history.
Whatever the plans were or weren't, they accepted the Partition Plan. You say they didn't which sadly casts doubt on your good faith discussions about the subject.
Meanwhile, the Arabs manifestly didn't accept the Partition Plan and invaded, and yes, the Israelis did have plans to expand (most notoriously Plan Dalet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet) and the Arab invasion gave them the opportunity to enact them.
Difficult to entirely blame the Palestinian Arabs for getting cross when they saw an international body solemnly handing over some of their country to, as they probably saw it, European refugees.
Yes don't disagree. But you know, there have been Jews kicking around the area for a few thousand years so it's not necessarily the most acute view of it all.
Perfectly true, but look how some people in UK are reacting to a few refugees turning up here.
Comments
For Hamas they demand the death of every Jew from the river to the sea.
I support the former, not the latter. What about you?
Everyone should be able to unite in demanding the unconditional and complete surrender of Hamas. Just as we demanded the unconditional and complete surrender of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and more recently as an example Sri Lanka achieved the unconditional and complete surrender of the Tamil Tigers.
Netanyahu needs a conflict, to deflect from his own incompetence and corruption. He’s now funding groups affiliated with IS, to foment further conflict in Gaza.
Many of his ministers wish to drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza, because they wish to annex those territories, and have no intention of granting civil rights to their inhabitants.
The Israeli government is as keen on war as Hamas is.
Saying "There are a plethora of Arab nations for Arabs to live in" is, at best, deeply ignorant. That's like saying there are a plethora of white Christian nations for white Christians to live in, so it doesn't matter if we wipe out, say, Poland. Or England.
An Israeli state can exist without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and without militarily invading its neighbours. There is no excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Let's start with Israel following international law and work from there. Peace has been achieved in many parts of the world that were previously in conflict without ethnic cleansing being necessary.
I think Britain has a pretty stark choice coming, to fend off bankruptcy AND civil unrest
We need to elect a British Milei, who will take an axe to the state, but with Danish Social Democrat policies on migration/asylum. A peaceful but ruthless revolution. This person will have to sweep away the Blob, in its entirety, sack the judges, lawyers, NGOs, the lot
That's the only democratic way out of this mess
Otherwise (unless we are saved by technology) we are going to drown in debt and there will be trouble in t'streets: we will need the IMF to bail us out AND the UN to keep the peace
What about Northern Ireland? Or the Basque country? Or North Macedonia? Or the Kurdish region in Iraq? Or even Bosnia?
If its not possible though, we need to deal with reality.
How many people were prosecuted for the "crime" of large population transfers in Azerbaijan recently?
Or is this a crime that's not generally enforced?
A nice client vote for the future.
How many people were prosecuted for those alleged "crimes"?
There was a proposal, put forward by the United Nations of all institutions, for there to be a Jewish State and an Arab State on mandate Palestine. But the Arabs didn't agree to that. So I think it is a touch disingenuous for you to state, or imply that a solution was never available, or rather, that Israel was never interested in an equitable solution.
Unless. You don't think the 1948 UN resolution was equitable and you oppose a Jewish state on that land in any form. Which is a perfectly coherent intellectual position to hold but does change the basis of the discussion.
Been listening to Spotify and bottling beer this morning, as well as ironing, so missed any news.
What an utter shambles.
Let's start with the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
civilian population of 2 million people to death, remarkably breaches the rules of war.
The British judiciary and state is also far stronger than in Argentina.
Until then, the first demand has to be the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
Personally I think Israelis would vote, as they often have, for peace were it to be an available option.
Also my wife and everyone of a similar age is going to completely hate it for being half baked crap
The Allies were stronger than the Germans.
We fought to win against the Germans, and the Ukrainians with our backing our fighting to win too. Quite right too.
We never set a death toll figure that said "if fatalities cross this figure then we won't fight the Germans anymore." Should we have? And if we shouldn't have, why should Israel in their own existential war?
I do support the defeat of Hamas.
How about you?
Arafat's rejection was a long time ago, and it's questionable how fair an offer it was. Most of the current Palestinian population was born after those events. It's a lousy excuse not to do anything now.
What about we start with Israel following international law? Why is that so difficult?
They’re modifying the criteria too.
Being in employment will now not gain extra points when applying so simply more zone 1 housing for the unemployed.
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1932006244472021435?s=61
Like some others on here I though Labour's original WFA move was sensible economics and responsible governance but badly enacted and ill considered in terms of its scope. That made it bad politics.
I actually think the revisions announced today answer most of those criticisms but sadly it will still turn out to be bad politics.
But at least they have mostly got it right in the end so I can't be too crictical of where they have ended up.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is currently distributing aid.
Blockades are legal in war and regularly happen.
Unlike you it seems, I also don't hold a Palestinian life to be worth any less than an Israeli one.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/new-executive-chairman-us-backed-aid-gaza-hits/story?id=122593546
As for CO2 from sea transport; that's actually *really* efficient compared to land transport. ISTR that the vast majority of CO2 emitted by coal bought in from Germany, was on the trains taking it from dock to the power station, and the ship's CO2 was a small minority.
But back to Israel/Palestine. Given it apparently hasn't been possible for Israel to achieve their official (and limited) war aims in Gaza without sliding towards a genocide, what on earth would a Total Victory for them look like, do we think?
And as for the other way, Total Defeat for Israel, well we know what that could entail, don't we?
No, it doesn't bear thinking about. I'm guessing that despite the posturing you feel the same.
It's an empire of bullshit and it's expanding rapidly.
Kemi seems to have two child cap in her sights now. She hasn't had a bad day either.
This Government have made it impossible for themselves or any future Government to tax the ever burgeoning group known as pensioners. Nigel and Kemi like Boris before them have magic money trees, so if we can get this shower out I think we will be OK.
You can tell Israel is not in an existential fight for survival by the fact that they've opened a new front, invading Syria.
If anyone is in an existential fight for survival, it's Palestine.
"Most of the Palestinian population was born after those events."
The Palestinians voted Hamas into government in 2006,since when there have been zero elections. So we have two options:
1. Ordinary decent Gazans who supported Hamas in their stated aims have now changed their minds and are suffering from the authoritarian government and only seek an opportunity to overthrow their cruel masters; or
2. Ordinary decent Gazans who supported Hamas in their stated aims still support Hamas in their stated aims.
Hamas remain the government of Gaza. So take your pick.
Last chance. Do you want to hear it?
You utterly miss the point. These access tracks alongside old lines are often used by NR/contractors for things other than access: storage of materials ready for nearby works; stabling of road/rail vehicles and other machinery etc. They're a secure location, nearer to potential sites, that they do not need to pay for and which reduces disruption (esp. at night when works are often done) and noise. And if it is used for access, then the fencing between the path and the railway utterly prevents access to the railway when they want to work - without dismantling and reassembling the fencing each night.
I don't know the Westhouses area of Alfreton, so perhaps that's a place it could be done with little difficulty. But many of these tracks are vital for the way NR work. And someone - not NR - needs to pay for it.
Perhaps ironically, Millei would probably have you all arrested, and is more a libertarian than any member of the Groucho.
/s
Your bitching about Israel just incentivises Hamas not to surrender and encourages the war to continue.
As for CO2-efficiency in sea transport, that's completely irrelevant if the sea journey isn't necessary at all. The alternative is not coal coming on a road journey from the USA, it's coal that is already here. It still needs transporting to Drax (and from the woodmill on to the boat at the other end) anyway.
Some Revisionist Zionists rejected the partition plan as a renunciation of legitimately Jewish national territory.[120] The Irgun Tsvai Leumi, led by Menachem Begin, and the Lehi (also known as the Stern Group or Gang), the two Revisionist-affiliated underground organisations which had been fighting against both the British and Arabs, stated their opposition. Begin warned that the partition would not bring peace because the Arabs would also attack the small state and that "in the war ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence and future."[121] He also stated that "the bisection of our homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized."[122] Begin was sure that the creation of a Jewish state would make territorial expansion possible, "after the shedding of much blood."[123]
Some Post-Zionist scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Arab Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of an Arab Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state.[20][124][125][126][127] Baruch Kimmerling has said that Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them."[19] Many Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.[16][20][19][21][10][128][129]
The fact they're the stronger party is meaningless if they don't get to use their strength to defeat their enemies whose state aims are to murder every Israeli.
Israel does not have a stated aim to murder every Palestinian. If they wanted to, they could have done that easily, but they're better than the people they're fighting with one arm tied behind their back.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect (clumsier PBers might label it a "lie" but that is not appropriate on PB I believe as we are all stating opinions). But the Zionist Leadership's acceptance of the 1947 plan is a fact.
However, you are also right abour war aims and invading more territory. But let's remember what the war was. It was the Arab nations invading what was by then Israel. The day after the UN resolution came into force.
And then yes absolutely, Israel, as it has done often in its conflicts, thought "fuck it", they want to obliterate us so we will take this opportunity to expand our allocated borders. And they did so. And hence today's Israel does not, as you say, follow the 1948 proposed border. But it would have done if the Arabs had accepted the proposition.
And what about its aggressive and expanding occupation of the West Bank? How is this about "the right to live in safety"?
They're fighting a war. They're targeting their enemy.
People die in wars. If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians we'd have 2 million dead by now, but there's no way to fight wars without collateral damage.
Especially wars where one side uses human shields.
Begin warned that the partition would not bring peace because the Arabs would also attack the small state and that "in the war ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence and future."
Begin was right. Israel accepted partition, the Arabs didn't. Everything that followed is the Arabs fault.
In fact, damn it, I will. That insight of yours upthread about Israel thinking it's fighting an "existential war" and we all have to remember that before criticising them for committing atrocities whilst they're about it.
That was acute.
Meanwhile, the Arabs manifestly didn't accept the Partition Plan and invaded, and yes, the Israelis did have plans to expand (most notoriously Plan Dalet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet) and the Arab invasion gave them the opportunity to enact them.
One interesting thing is that the station has a new footbridge-with-lifts, and has been redone to be an open station model. And the accessibility of the station - having done a quick survey - is now about 7/10 as it does not have secure cycle parking (just Sheffield stands) or an accessible loo. But they have done a good job wrt steps, car parking, accessibility of platforms, tactile paving (right patterns in right places) and clarity of colours.
That means there is now a new way across the railway, were access from outside to the other platform to be possible.
Lots of potential if requirements can be met and the organisation barriers fixed.
Anyway - thanks for the debate.
I'm off for a Covid jab.
And the hostile expanding occupation of the West Bank - are we fine with this too? Guess we are.
This is quite some legacy of having that schoolfriend.
If Hamas won't surrender, then refugee status exists for a reason in times of war and the cycle of violence needs to be broken.
But I'm also not sure I agree with you. It may have been better in some ways, but you know people back then were saying how crummy things were (remember the negativity in the dog days of the Major government?) and how things were better thirty years earlier. And how in the 1960s, people were decrying the changes and how things were better in previous decades (though I assume they'd be thinking very narrowly about the 1920s, and not the 1910s or 1930s...)
I look back fondly on the 1980s and 1990s, mainly because I was in my teens and twenties, and everything felt new and shiny. The world was my oyster. But some of my few memories of the 1970s are of my parents trying to drive a nascent business through the economic woes of that time. I only remember seeing two books on my dad's bedside table when I was a kid: one was Samuel Pepys diaries, and the other was one called something like "Coping with inflation."
If I was a Palestinian living in Gaza, I might well support Hamas in their attempt to remove the existential threat at my doorstep.
Though I'd like to think my 'support' in both cases would be qualified and mute. I hope...