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.
No, they accepted the partition but their attackers invaded anyway. As your link says and the quote said they knew would happen.
If you invade someone to seize land then its karmic justice to lose land instead. Good for Israel for expanding its land upon being attacked, well done 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?
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.
Ah, so this is why you're getting a bit uptight with me. No, I don't remotely have the standard Jez/Jones view on this. Not sure where such a misconception came from. But anyway, never mind. God, these internet forums.
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.
While holding no candle whatsoever for those views, there were no, say, Sudanese people living in the UK three thousand years ago whose ancestors viewed their arrival here as "coming home".
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.
Ah, so this is why you're getting a bit uptight with me. No, I don't remotely have the standard Jez/Jones view on this. Not sure where such a misconception came from. But anyway, never mind. God, these internet forums.
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.
- Now we're rocking.
Tricky subject, though, isn't it, Israel/Palestine. Even for somebody like you, been in the military, plus all the books you've read, it's no cakewalk.
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.
As in the UK, I can imagine that people voted for Hamas all those years ago for a number of reasons - access to food and work being a biggie, given the way Hamas operate, along with fear of voting the 'wrong' way.
But most of all, I'd want peace.
And this is one thing I think is helping Ahmad al-Sharaa keep (relative) peace in Syria: 90 percent of the population were under the poverty line, and all but the most diehards were fed up with war.
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.
If we really wanted to make use of the vast coal reserves for energy (and I am not actually proposing that we should) then a far better way - cleaner, more efficient and waaaaay safer for the workers - would be degasification.
The idea of reopening coal mines for energy production is on a par with bringing back horses for farming. It is a romantic notion far removed from reality.
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.
As in the UK, I can imagine that people voted for Hamas all those years ago for a number of reasons - access to food and work being a biggie, given the way Hamas operate, along with fear of voting the 'wrong' way.
But most of all, I'd want peace.
And this is one thing I think is helping Ahmad al-Sharaa keep (relative) peace in Syria: 90 percent of the population were under the poverty line, and all but the most diehards were fed up with war.
Given the passage of time and how young the population is, I would wonder what percentage the then-45% that voted for Hamas in 2006 is of the current adult population.
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.
If we really wanted to make use of the vast coal reserves for energy (and I am not actually proposing that we should) then a far better way - cleaner, more efficient and waaaaay safer for the workers - would be degasification.
The idea of reopening coal mines for energy production is on a par with bringing back horses for farming. It is a romantic notion far removed from reality.
You mean underground gasification?
That will be popular - when you explain that it involves a form of fracking....
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.
- Now we're rocking.
Tricky subject, though, isn't it, Israel/Palestine. Even for somebody like you, been in the military, plus all the books you've read, it's no cakewalk.
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?
An old - and brilliant - railway surveyor I had the honour of knowing had an old Midland Railway surveyor's tape measure that he still used to set out railways in the 1990s, when he was in his eighties. He was given it when he started on the railway by the guy who was training him, who had started in pre-grouping times.
Annoyingly, I cannot remember if it was just feet and inches, or had miles, chains and links on it as well. From memory, it was also rather threadbare.
I follow quite a few British pro-Israel accounts on Twitter. Largely I am supportive- Israel is under sustained attack both by Hamas and by the cyber-Palestinians.
Where it becomes a problem is that they seem utterly unable to accept that israel is doing anything wrong. If Palestinians are being mercilessly slaughtered by the IDF its Hamas's responsibility. If Palestinians are starving its because Hamas have stolen the food. Etc
Whilst I am sympathetic to the realities of just how bad Hamas are, there is a growing problem of Israel's image in the global public's imagination, and this is just as big a threat to them as what's left 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.
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.
Man on internet proposes, *insert Abrahamic god of choice* pays no attention and disposes.
I fear I must break it to you that you have as little influence on this issue as kinabalu, perhaps as a PBer noted for immunity to arguments to the point of derangement, even less.
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 agree, but why choose? I suspect that Cumbria may product a lot of other stuff that's not of steelmaking quality, so why not take it to Drax and burn it? We need Drax for backup power generation, and I've just illustrated that American woodchip is more carbon-intensive and I suspect it's also more expensive - quite apart from the fact that it's supporting US jobs and the US tax base, not ours.
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.
No, you don't get it, because you didn't give any worthwhile reasons before, and you have added to that gaping lack of reasons now.
Drax is a solid fuel burning station that we retain for very good reasons, so why on earth would I not use it as a real world example?
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 agree, but why choose? I suspect that Cumbria may product a lot of other stuff that's not of steelmaking quality, so why not take it to Drax and burn it? We need Drax for backup power generation, and I've just illustrated that American woodchip is more carbon-intensive and I suspect it's also more expensive - quite apart from the fact that it's supporting US jobs and the US tax base, not ours.
Gas is far better for that backup generation, in a number of ways.
I follow quite a few British pro-Israel accounts on Twitter. Largely I am supportive- Israel is under sustained attack both by Hamas and by the cyber-Palestinians.
Where it becomes a problem is that they seem utterly unable to accept that israel is doing anything wrong. If Palestinians are being mercilessly slaughtered by the IDF its Hamas's responsibility. If Palestinians are starving its because Hamas have stolen the food. Etc
Whilst I am sympathetic to the realities of just how bad Hamas are, there is a growing problem of Israel's image in the global public's imagination, and this is just as big a threat to them as what's left of Hamas.
Hamas has won the PR war all hands down. It will be studied in years to come.
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.
Man on internet proposes, *insert Abrahamic god of choice* pays no attention and disposes.
I fear I must break it to you that you have as little influence on this issue as kinabalu, perhaps as a PBer noted for immunity to arguments to the point of derangement, even less.
You're right I don't have a say in it, but whether you like it or not Israel does.
And Israel is perfectly entitled to demand the complete and unconditional surrender of Hamas.
Just as we demanded the complete and unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan.
Who was saying in 1945 "well the war has been going on for years, we should end it without victory because otherwise people will die."
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 agree, but why choose? I suspect that Cumbria may product a lot of other stuff that's not of steelmaking quality, so why not take it to Drax and burn it? We need Drax for backup power generation, and I've just illustrated that American woodchip is more carbon-intensive and I suspect it's also more expensive - quite apart from the fact that it's supporting US jobs and the US tax base, not ours.
Gas is far better for that backup generation, in a number of ways.
Sure, but we are still burning solid fuel at Drax.
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.
- Now we're rocking.
Tricky subject, though, isn't it, Israel/Palestine. Even for somebody like you, been in the military, plus all the books you've read, it's no cakewalk.
Not tricky at all, actually.
C'mon, don't spoil it. Of course it is. Israel/Palestine is morally very complex. Although, just with this latest iteration, I think there is an obvious place to land. Oct 7th was wicked beyond belief and Israel's response has slid into the same category.
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 agree, but why choose? I suspect that Cumbria may product a lot of other stuff that's not of steelmaking quality, so why not take it to Drax and burn it? We need Drax for backup power generation, and I've just illustrated that American woodchip is more carbon-intensive and I suspect it's also more expensive - quite apart from the fact that it's supporting US jobs and the US tax base, not ours.
Gas is far better for that backup generation, in a number of ways.
Sure, but we are still burning solid fuel at Drax.
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.
No, you don't get it, because you didn't give any worthwhile reasons before, and you have added to that gaping lack of reasons now.
Drax is a solid fuel burning station that we retain for very good reasons, so why on earth would I not use it as a real world example?
You chat utter mince on this issue.
I didn't give worthwhile reasons????
Let's take just one of them. Forget CO2: look at the air quality around coal-fired power stations. It isn't good. I was born and raised a few miles away from a power station (Willington - actually two plants), and if the wind was blowing in from that direction my mum would have to bring the washing in, as it would soon be covered by little black smuts. Environmentally, coal power is terrible.
(And I love the fact that coal power generation releases more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power stations...)
As with your repeating of Russian lies over MH17 or Ukrainian Biolabs or Assad, you are the one who is talking utter mince.
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.
- Now we're rocking.
Tricky subject, though, isn't it, Israel/Palestine. Even for somebody like you, been in the military, plus all the books you've read, it's no cakewalk.
Not tricky at all, actually.
C'mon, don't spoil it. Of course it is. Israel/Palestine is morally very complex. Although, just with this latest iteration, I think there is an obvious place to land. Oct 7th was wicked beyond belief and Israel's response has slid into the same category.
It's very straightforward, especially morally. And I disagree with your assertion. But arguing with lefties, even bien pensant ex-swaps trader deeply insecure lefties about Israel/Palestine is an exercise in futility which time spent on CiF taught me I should avoid.
So I will leave it there. You say you think stuff about Israel/Palestine and that is your truth so fine and enjoy spending time with it.
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?
They’ve messed up the timetable in a lot of ways if it’s possible for a train to arrive in Paddington 15 minutes early
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.
By a few you mean more immigrants than the total jewish population of israel?
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.
If we really wanted to make use of the vast coal reserves for energy (and I am not actually proposing that we should) then a far better way - cleaner, more efficient and waaaaay safer for the workers - would be degasification.
The idea of reopening coal mines for energy production is on a par with bringing back horses for farming. It is a romantic notion far removed from reality.
It's all performative with Farage, direct from the Trump playbook ("drill, baby, drill"). Of course, it's cobblers, but that won't bother Nige.
Tap room politics designed to appeal to WWC voters in the Welsh valleys ahead of next year's elections, and put Welsh Labour in a tricky situation. Very likely will work as no-one much cares about the Welsh Assembly, or who runs it.
Farage's genius, like his master's in Washington DC, is media saturation by bold, striking gestures, which resonate with the atavistic instincts of his followers.
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 agree, but why choose? I suspect that Cumbria may product a lot of other stuff that's not of steelmaking quality, so why not take it to Drax and burn it? We need Drax for backup power generation, and I've just illustrated that American woodchip is more carbon-intensive and I suspect it's also more expensive - quite apart from the fact that it's supporting US jobs and the US tax base, not ours.
Gas is far better for that backup generation, in a number of ways.
Sure, but we are still burning solid fuel at Drax.
It would have to be converted again to burn coal.
We shouldn't be burning woodchip there. It would be madness to spend money converting it back to coal.
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"?
The West Bank is a different matter to Gaza but in line with my principles I'm perfectly fine with Israel building on the West Bank and creating facts on the ground.
I have no objection to construction, never have done.
If the land were Palestinian land then Israelis wouldn't be entitled to build there, but it isn't since Arafat rejected peace.
The accords state that the final border is up for negotiations. If settlers want to influence those negotiations by building homes, then fair play to them.
If Labour are favourites to win most seats that would be based on significant tactical voting for them from LD and Green voters in marginal seats to keep Reform 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.
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.
Man on internet proposes, *insert Abrahamic god of choice* pays no attention and disposes.
I fear I must break it to you that you have as little influence on this issue as kinabalu, perhaps as a PBer noted for immunity to arguments to the point of derangement, even less.
The WW2 comparison whereby Israel is 'us' and Hamas is Hitler is an exocet missile to any debate on this.
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.
If we really wanted to make use of the vast coal reserves for energy (and I am not actually proposing that we should) then a far better way - cleaner, more efficient and waaaaay safer for the workers - would be degasification.
The idea of reopening coal mines for energy production is on a par with bringing back horses for farming. It is a romantic notion far removed from reality.
It's all performative with Farage, direct from the Trump playbook ("drill, baby, drill"). Of course, it's cobblers, but that won't bother Nige.
Tap room politics designed to appeal to WWC voters in the Welsh valleys ahead of next year's elections, and put Welsh Labour in a tricky situation. Very likely will work as no-one much cares about the Welsh Assembly, or who runs it.
Farage's genius, like his master's in Washington DC, is media saturation by bold, striking gestures, which resonate with the atavistic instincts of his followers.
It was a genius move from Farage, wrongfooted the 'progressive' pro net zero Plaid as much as Labour and a clear pitch to working class ex Labour voters in South Wales to show Reform are clearly different from Thatcher's Tory Party (though that was a bit unfair on Maggie given Wilson closed more mines than she did)
The Hamilton byelection shows that the betting markets have not yet adjusted to the new realities of volatile elections. My bets on Reform winning and SNP getting 25-30% were overall quite profitable. While I observed the drop off in the SNP vote I underestimated the Labour GOTV. Note that if you told me when I was young that Labour would only win 32% of the vote in Hamilton I would not believe you.
The bet must be on the Tories and the Lib Dems winning the most seats. The Lib Dem sat 30/1 is particularly attractive.
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.
Man on internet proposes, *insert Abrahamic god of choice* pays no attention and disposes.
I fear I must break it to you that you have as little influence on this issue as kinabalu, perhaps as a PBer noted for immunity to arguments to the point of derangement, even less.
The WW2 comparison whereby Israel is 'us' and Hamas is Hitler is an exocet missile to any debate on this.
Soon as I see that, I know it's game over.
Well its reality and one I've brought up every time the topic has come up, and will every time it continues to do so until Hamas surrenders unconditionally just as the Nazis were compelled to do so.
Especially with any hypocrites demanding Israel follows "laws" we didn't follow when we were fighting for our survival like they are today.
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.
No, you don't get it, because you didn't give any worthwhile reasons before, and you have added to that gaping lack of reasons now.
Drax is a solid fuel burning station that we retain for very good reasons, so why on earth would I not use it as a real world example?
You chat utter mince on this issue.
I didn't give worthwhile reasons????
Let's take just one of them. Forget CO2: look at the air quality around coal-fired power stations. It isn't good. I was born and raised a few miles away from a power station (Willington - actually two plants), and if the wind was blowing in from that direction my mum would have to bring the washing in, as it would soon be covered by little black smuts. Environmentally, coal power is terrible.
(And I love the fact that coal power generation releases more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power stations...)
As with your repeating of Russian lies over MH17 or Ukrainian Biolabs or Assad, you are the one who is talking utter mince.
Thanks. I like it when someone acknowledges they've lost the argument.
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.
- Now we're rocking.
Tricky subject, though, isn't it, Israel/Palestine. Even for somebody like you, been in the military, plus all the books you've read, it's no cakewalk.
Not tricky at all, actually.
C'mon, don't spoil it. Of course it is. Israel/Palestine is morally very complex. Although, just with this latest iteration, I think there is an obvious place to land. Oct 7th was wicked beyond belief and Israel's response has slid into the same category.
It's very straightforward, especially morally. And I disagree with your assertion. But arguing with lefties, even bien pensant ex-swaps trader deeply insecure lefties about Israel/Palestine is an exercise in futility which time spent on CiF taught me I should avoid.
So I will leave it there. You say you think stuff about Israel/Palestine and that is your truth so fine and enjoy spending time with it.
The irony is you have more in common with those "lefties" than I do - because they think it's all very straightforward too.
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.
The fighting began months before the Arab nations invaded.
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.
No, you don't get it, because you didn't give any worthwhile reasons before, and you have added to that gaping lack of reasons now.
Drax is a solid fuel burning station that we retain for very good reasons, so why on earth would I not use it as a real world example?
You chat utter mince on this issue.
I didn't give worthwhile reasons????
Let's take just one of them. Forget CO2: look at the air quality around coal-fired power stations. It isn't good. I was born and raised a few miles away from a power station (Willington - actually two plants), and if the wind was blowing in from that direction my mum would have to bring the washing in, as it would soon be covered by little black smuts. Environmentally, coal power is terrible.
(And I love the fact that coal power generation releases more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power stations...)
As with your repeating of Russian lies over MH17 or Ukrainian Biolabs or Assad, you are the one who is talking utter mince.
Thanks. I like it when someone acknowledges they've lost the argument.
I love it when people show they're utterly clueless. As you are in this case. But I won't say thanks, as your thinking is really dangerous.
Going back to coal for power generation is backwards and stupid. It is polluting, expensive, and inflexible. It has no practical advantages over a combination of gas, renewables and nuclear. I'm in favour of a mix of power generation, as I've written about in the past. But coal has no place in that mix.
But here's a proposal: write a threader for this site going into why you think coal power generation from UK mined coal is the way forward for the UK. It may make you clarify your thoughts a little.
I follow quite a few British pro-Israel accounts on Twitter. Largely I am supportive- Israel is under sustained attack both by Hamas and by the cyber-Palestinians.
Where it becomes a problem is that they seem utterly unable to accept that israel is doing anything wrong. If Palestinians are being mercilessly slaughtered by the IDF its Hamas's responsibility. If Palestinians are starving its because Hamas have stolen the food. Etc
Whilst I am sympathetic to the realities of just how bad Hamas are, there is a growing problem of Israel's image in the global public's imagination, and this is just as big a threat to them as what's left of Hamas.
Hamas has won the PR war all hands down. It will be studied in years to come.
People look at Hamas, and then they look at the Israeli government, and conclude each side are murdering, racist, arseholes.
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.
AI is alive and well .... just had a council tax bill for a property I own. There is a short void for which I will be liable but since it's a small amount, I filled out an online enquiry form asking if they really wanted paid or should I wait for an amended bill.
Before I had pressed the send button, the AI system (Aiva) read the contents of the form, answered my question (pay full amount now) and signposted me to a page on their website explaining it. So no need to poke around on the council's website and no staff had to read/answer my query.
That makes a change from trying to get through to them or waiting until they reply. Wonder how long it will take to get a refund as they are asking me to overpay?
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.
AI says murder all the home owners and build on their land.
I sometimes get the impression that Britain is being governed entirely in the interests of not-Britain
Essentially the Rental Reform Bill is just that. You can't get the tenants out unless they fail to pay or you intend to repossess the property for yourself. Just someone spinning the legislation to make a cheap point which you have swallowed whole.
I follow quite a few British pro-Israel accounts on Twitter. Largely I am supportive- Israel is under sustained attack both by Hamas and by the cyber-Palestinians.
Where it becomes a problem is that they seem utterly unable to accept that israel is doing anything wrong. If Palestinians are being mercilessly slaughtered by the IDF its Hamas's responsibility. If Palestinians are starving its because Hamas have stolen the food. Etc
Whilst I am sympathetic to the realities of just how bad Hamas are, there is a growing problem of Israel's image in the global public's imagination, and this is just as big a threat to them as what's left of Hamas.
Hamas has won the PR war all hands down. It will be studied in years to come.
People look at Hamas, and then they look at the Israeli government, and conclude each side are murdering, racist, arseholes.
Comments
If you invade someone to seize land then its karmic justice to lose land instead. Good for Israel for expanding its land upon being attacked, well done them.
It really is a freebie culture but I do have some sympathy for minimum-wage parents in all this. Where is their unconditional WFP?
@LeftieStats
🚨 NEW | Reform lead by 5pts
🟦 REF – 27% (+6)
🔴 LAB – 22% (-5)
🔵 CON – 19% (-2)
🟠 LD – 13% (+2)
🟢 GRN – 13% (+2)
Via @LordAshcroft, 29 May-2 Jun (+/- vs 10-14 Apr)"
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1931756830964724182
Tricky subject, though, isn't it, Israel/Palestine. Even for somebody like you, been in the military, plus all the books you've read, it's no cakewalk.
But most of all, I'd want peace.
And this is one thing I think is helping Ahmad al-Sharaa keep (relative) peace in Syria: 90 percent of the population were under the poverty line, and all but the most diehards were fed up with war.
The idea of reopening coal mines for energy production is on a par with bringing back horses for farming. It is a romantic notion far removed from reality.
That will be popular - when you explain that it involves a form of fracking....
Annoyingly, I cannot remember if it was just feet and inches, or had miles, chains and links on it as well. From memory, it was also rather threadbare.
Where it becomes a problem is that they seem utterly unable to accept that israel is doing anything wrong. If Palestinians are being mercilessly slaughtered by the IDF its Hamas's responsibility. If Palestinians are starving its because Hamas have stolen the food. Etc
Whilst I am sympathetic to the realities of just how bad Hamas are, there is a growing problem of Israel's image in the global public's imagination, and this is just as big a threat to them as what's left of Hamas.
I fear I must break it to you that you have as little influence on this issue as kinabalu, perhaps as a PBer noted for immunity to arguments to the point of derangement, even less.
Drax is a solid fuel burning station that we retain for very good reasons, so why on earth would I not use it as a real world example?
You chat utter mince on this issue.
And Israel is perfectly entitled to demand the complete and unconditional surrender of Hamas.
Just as we demanded the complete and unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan.
Who was saying in 1945 "well the war has been going on for years, we should end it without victory because otherwise people will die."
They're wrong to do so and it speaks ill of them, but they're the ones who did well at the local elections which has frightened Labour into caving in.
Let's take just one of them. Forget CO2: look at the air quality around coal-fired power stations. It isn't good. I was born and raised a few miles away from a power station (Willington - actually two plants), and if the wind was blowing in from that direction my mum would have to bring the washing in, as it would soon be covered by little black smuts. Environmentally, coal power is terrible.
(And I love the fact that coal power generation releases more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power stations...)
As with your repeating of Russian lies over MH17 or Ukrainian Biolabs or Assad, you are the one who is talking utter mince.
So I will leave it there. You say you think stuff about Israel/Palestine and that is your truth so fine and enjoy spending time with it.
Tap room politics designed to appeal to WWC voters in the Welsh valleys ahead of next year's elections, and put Welsh Labour in a tricky situation. Very likely will work as no-one much cares about the Welsh Assembly, or who runs it.
Farage's genius, like his master's in Washington DC, is media saturation by bold, striking gestures, which resonate with the atavistic instincts of his followers.
We shouldn't be burning woodchip there. It would be madness to spend money converting it back to coal.
I have no objection to construction, never have done.
If the land were Palestinian land then Israelis wouldn't be entitled to build there, but it isn't since Arafat rejected peace.
The accords state that the final border is up for negotiations. If settlers want to influence those negotiations by building homes, then fair play to them.
Soon as I see that, I know it's game over.
The bet must be on the Tories and the Lib Dems winning the most seats. The Lib Dem sat 30/1 is particularly attractive.
Especially with any hypocrites demanding Israel follows "laws" we didn't follow when we were fighting for our survival like they are today.
NEW THREAD
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=19&LAB=22&LIB=13&Reform=27&Green=13&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
Going back to coal for power generation is backwards and stupid. It is polluting, expensive, and inflexible. It has no practical advantages over a combination of gas, renewables and nuclear. I'm in favour of a mix of power generation, as I've written about in the past. But coal has no place in that mix.
But here's a proposal: write a threader for this site going into why you think coal power generation from UK mined coal is the way forward for the UK. It may make you clarify your thoughts a little.
Before I had pressed the send button, the AI system (Aiva) read the contents of the form, answered my question (pay full amount now) and signposted me to a page on their website explaining it. So no need to poke around on the council's website and no staff had to read/answer my query.
That makes a change from trying to get through to them or waiting until they reply. Wonder how long it will take to get a refund as they are asking me to overpay?
I though journalists checked first.