Israel has killed Iran’s top military commander just four days after he was appointed. Ali Shadmani was killed in a command centre in central Tehran, the IDF said, after a “a sudden opportunity” arose for an airstrike
This is a bit mean-spirited (the article, not you). It holds up a 0.1% error as evidence of systemic problems. But when compared to other countries it's tiny. We really don't know how lucky we are.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Doesn't that cut both ways though, if its under a massive amount of rock then if you can bring that massive amount of rock down upon it, then it will be well buried and inaccessible?
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
From a physics perspective, it's just really tough to do - unless you go the nuclear route, because millions of tonnes of rock is not easily moved. The US's most powerful bomb - the GBU-57A/B - can blow a hole up to 40 meters deep... But 40 meters isn't necessarily that much. Now, sure, you can drop more than one, but a few hundred meters of mountain is really hard to get through.
Sounds like a commando raid is needed
Well yes: the problem is that (as the Americans discovered in Iran in 1980) sending a team thousands of miles by air, landing them, achieving a mission, and then getting back out again is really difficult.
Pfff, Bond manages it every time solo, they just need some more martinis and better patter.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Doesn't that cut both ways though, if its under a massive amount of rock then if you can bring that massive amount of rock down upon it, then it will be well buried and inaccessible?
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
From a physics perspective, it's just really tough to do - unless you go the nuclear route, because millions of tonnes of rock is not easily moved. The US's most powerful bomb - the GBU-57A/B - can blow a hole up to 40 meters deep... But 40 meters isn't necessarily that much. Now, sure, you can drop more than one, but a few hundred meters of mountain is really hard to get through.
Sounds like a commando raid is needed
Well yes: the problem is that (as the Americans discovered in Iran in 1980) sending a team thousands of miles by air, landing them, achieving a mission, and then getting back out again is really difficult.
Send me in, I'm a tier one operator on Warzone/ Modern Warfare. Blowing up nukes in Iran is my happy place.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel attacked Syria, who have not been seeking a bomb and whose new government was making positive overtures.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
Diesel at £1.289 this morning. Amazing really given the goings on in the Middle East.
Just how f***** is the economy?
Who was that politician that told us to get on our (economic) cycle? You never know if you are f***** until it is too late. Already seeing some collapse in the holiday business (an area where I have some knowledge) but it may be localised to that industry or bad management or a zombie company. Just relax and enjoy the ride.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel attacked Syria, who have not been seeking a bomb and whose new government was making positive overtures.
Israel attacked Lebanon too.
That would be the same Syria that declared war against Israel, are still at war against Israel and is led by Islamist terrorists?
Or a different Syria?
Funny how you keep getting this selective amnesia and forgetting that Syria and Israel are at war. I wonder why that is?
And would that be the same Lebanon that has been, via Hezbollah, attacking Israel or a different Lebanon?
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
Actually, 60% is enough for a bomb. 32kg with a 10cm Beryllium reflector/tamper would work, in an implosion device. Yield would suck, though.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
Israel has killed Iran’s top military commander just four days after he was appointed. Ali Shadmani was killed in a command centre in central Tehran, the IDF said, after a “a sudden opportunity” arose for an airstrike
Lebanon strategy being repeated.
See my earlier mail about anti-mullah Iranians tipping off the IDF.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Doesn't that cut both ways though, if its under a massive amount of rock then if you can bring that massive amount of rock down upon it, then it will be well buried and inaccessible?
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
From a physics perspective, it's just really tough to do - unless you go the nuclear route, because millions of tonnes of rock is not easily moved. The US's most powerful bomb - the GBU-57A/B - can blow a hole up to 40 meters deep... But 40 meters isn't necessarily that much. Now, sure, you can drop more than one, but a few hundred meters of mountain is really hard to get through.
Sounds like a commando raid is needed
Well yes: the problem is that (as the Americans discovered in Iran in 1980) sending a team thousands of miles by air, landing them, achieving a mission, and then getting back out again is really difficult.
I didnt say it would be easy. But while the US screwed up the Israelis did the even longer yards at Entebbe.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Musing on tax and pension matters after my debate with MaxPB and others yesterday evening, I'm left with two thoughts.
The sense of being "over taxed" is compounded by the failure to raise thresholds. This "fiscal drag" or "stealth tax" instigated by the high-tax Conservative Government and now initated by its Labour successor has dragged so many more people into the higher tax bracket in the sense more of their income is now taxed at the 40% rate.
When I argued for a new 50% higher rate, apart from the usual howl of outrage, one or two failed to read the next bit which was to bring the thresholds to where they would have been allowing for annual RPI so the rates would rise so many middle to high income earners wouldm probably be better off from a simple 25p basic rate and 50p higher rate if the threshold from the former to the latter was set much higher than now.
The second point was about pensions - again, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about "public sector pensions" which are complex and by no means all the same - a Teacher's Pension is not a Local Government Officer's pension which in turn is not a Police pension or a civil servant pension.
In the Local Government Scheme (LPGS), there are swingeing penalties if you leave to take your benefits early - up to 25% if you go five years before your retirement. The problem is those staff are a) not likely to progress further andf b) are simply place-sitting preventing younger (and possibly more productive) staff from moving up and progressing. This needs to be re-thought within LPGS and elsewhere.
There are options for flexible retirement within LPGS whereby you can work fewer hours and start taking some of your pension and we might need to think about how we employ those 60 or above not only in terms of NI contribution but in terms of flexible hours and pension/salary provision.
We come back to the central question of how to being the public finances closer to balance in terms of reducing borrowing and the deficit. The debate can't be simply abandoned to the "supply side reform" proponents whose sole mantra is "tax cuts and spending cuts". We are well past it being either/or - it has to be tax rises AND spending cuts but getting the balance right between the two isn't easy. Osborne went for £5 of cuts for every £1 of tax rises but that was a different time and it may well be a more even apportion is apposite.
25% reduction for starting a DB pension 5 years early isn't really a "penalty" though is it ? It's a rough approximation of the extra net present value of the income stream. If you took £1m to an insurance company at age 55 and said "How much less annuity will you give me if it starts today rather than in 5 years time", I'm sure it would be in the region of 25%
I'm sure you're right but that's not how it looks to the member of the scheme where it looks like a penalty and sounds like a penalty but if you have someone who has paid off their mortgage (thanks to low interest rates) and perhaps downsized to a smaller property and taken a nice capital receipt as a result, even the lower figure might be enough for the decision to be made to retire early.
That "paid off mortgage, don't give a stuff" thing isn't new- it was the point of departure for the plots of both The Good Life and Howards' Way. And I can vouch for the extra sang-froid it gives someone in the face of workplace unpleasantness.
It's clearly not helpful for our national lifestyle if people opt out of work in mid middle age. But motivating an employee who has decided they aren't bothered about the money isn't easy, and I'm not sure how many businesses are up to the challenge.
Yes. The Good Life started with the Goods having paid off their mortgage on a large house in Surbiton's premier road on a single income before Tom's 40th birthday. Try doing that now!
No kids, mind. And probably joined the company aged 17, no university and worked his way up. (Good friends with one of the higher ups, too, so a helping hand?)
Yes, Tom Good and Jerry Leadbetter both joined the company at the same time as draughtsmen. Jerry worked his way up - Tom didn't. It didn't really occur to him that he was supposed to and he suddenly found all his colleagues were 20 years younger than him.
There are few better social histories than British sitcoms. See also "Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads", "I Never Knew You Cared", etc.
I also love watching outside location shoots on them to see (a) the empty streets, so unlike today's towns and cities and (b) the vehicles.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel attacked Syria, who have not been seeking a bomb and whose new government was making positive overtures.
Israel attacked Lebanon too.
That would be the same Syria that declared war against Israel, are still at war against Israel and is led by Islamist terrorists?
Or a different Syria?
Funny how you keep getting this selective amnesia and forgetting that Syria and Israel are at war. I wonder why that is?
And would that be the same Lebanon that has been, via Hezbollah, attacking Israel or a different Lebanon?
I didn’t say there weren’t reasons. I said they weren’t developing nuclear weapons.
When did Syria declare war on Israel? It was decades ago and while there had never been a peace treaty, there was a UN-mediated ceasefire decades ago. The new Syrian government had nothing to do with those decisions decades ago and was making peaceful overtures to Israel. Israel still invaded a UN buffer zone and then Syrian territory. Israel didn’t even claim they were doing so because of any threat to Israel.
Past events do not give Israel carte blanche to do whatever they want for ever more.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel attacked Syria, who have not been seeking a bomb and whose new government was making positive overtures.
Israel attacked Lebanon too.
That would be the same Syria that declared war against Israel, are still at war against Israel and is led by Islamist terrorists?
Or a different Syria?
Funny how you keep getting this selective amnesia and forgetting that Syria and Israel are at war. I wonder why that is?
And would that be the same Lebanon that has been, via Hezbollah, attacking Israel or a different Lebanon?
I didn’t say there weren’t reasons. I said they weren’t developing nuclear weapons.
When did Syria declare war on Israel? It was decades ago and while there had never been a peace treaty, there was a UN-mediated ceasefire decades ago. The new Syrian government had nothing to do with those decisions decades ago and was making peaceful overtures to Israel. Israel still invaded a UN buffer zone and then Syrian territory. Israel didn’t even claim they were doing so because of any threat to Israel.
Past events do not give Israel carte blanche to do whatever they want for ever more.
Syria is at war with Israel. No peace treaty means its still at war, you don't get to discount that as irrelevant.
You believe the new Syrian government were making overtures. I believe the new Syrian government is consisting of people whom until recently the UK (let alone Israeli) government proscribed as fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.
So a country they are at war with is taken over by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and you wish to set all that aside because of overtures?
In his most recent financial disclosure, Trump reported making more than $600m last year, including millions from items such as Trump-branded bibles, watches sneakers and fragrances.
Forbes in March estimated his net worth was $5.1bn, more than double what it was a year earlier.
Politics is a business now which is why so many billionaires are interested. Though if you go back in history, it has always been so.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
If you're a country, and Mr X is at war with you, you do.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
The Government’s national security review, due to be published before a Nato summit next week, will expand the definition to include economic stability, food prices, supply chains, crime and the internet. Broadband and Heathrow’s third runway are to be counted as defence spending under Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to redraw the definition of national security.
So literally everything could be put in the defence bucket.
This is like when Mandy claimed 100,000s of green jobs that included shoe makers because they made some vegan leather options...didn't it even include petrol pump attendents?
This is a bit mean-spirited (the article, not you). It holds up a 0.1% error as evidence of systemic problems. But when compared to other countries it's tiny. We really don't know how lucky we are.
Jimmy's Job of the Future has got every bodies favourite Mayor on this week. Its turned into a bit of a weird podcast where it seems lots of politicians go on and very little about jobs of the future (which was actually interesting idea).
It’s all jolly exciting. Nuclear war imminent. Britain sinking into sectarian strife. Wimbledon just around the corner
I hope the 37 year old winner of the women's trophy at Queens does well at Wimbledon too.
I would note that the field was a bit poor - most of the women are playing grass court in Berlin this week as it was the middle week of three between French Open and Wimbledon (so a week off, a week on grass then a week to get ready for Wimbledon).
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
Well, Iran is not an Arab country. And if the religious authorities were sure that the people would always vote the right way why would they need to bar candidates from the ballot?
Never underestimate the appetite for old Islamic men to impose their will on women and young people. Egypt is the best example, we left them to it after the Arab spring and they voted for the Muslim brotherhood and then we (the west) had to intervene to put a secularism dictator back in charge because the Muslim brotherhood were imposing Islamist rule on the country and threatening to restrict usage of canal.
Err no. This is almost the opposite of what happened. The Muslim brotherhood creature was 'the West's choice. Him being toppled was Egypt reasserting itself.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
If you're a country, and Mr X is at war with you, you do.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
I can't deny hostility towards Israel is hideous. I am questioning whether the reaction is often an over reaction for wider political agendas of some political players on Israel.
You are very like Jeremy Corbyn as you seem unable to differentiate Jewish people and what is best for Israel in the long term and Netanyahu's immediate political expediency and avoidance of judicial jeopardy.
Mossad are successfully terrorising the entire Iranian elite. Even Khameni knows the evil Jews can get him, if Trump gives the nod
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of islamofascists. Deploy the micro-violins
They can precisely target an individual 1,500km and two countries away but feel the need to indiscriminately fire missiles and shell people desperately waiting for the food to keep themselves alive. That's cutting them an inordinate amount of slack.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
If you're a country, and Mr X is at war with you, you do.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
I can't deny hostility towards Israel is hideous. I am questioning whether the reaction is often an over reaction for wider political agendas of some political players on Israel.
You are very like Jeremy Corbyn as you seem unable to differentiate Jewish people and what is best for Israel in the long term and Netanyahu's immediate political expediency and avoidance of judicial jeopardy.
I absolutely differentiate between them.
I would like to see Israel's enemies be defeated. Some people here seem to find that an utterly alien concept.
That belief has nothing to do with Netanyahu whom I would love to see imprisoned for corruption.
But even a broken clock can be right. When it comes to warfare, Netanyahu is currently doing the right thing . . . partially putting to rights the wrongs done by . . . Netanyahu.
Mossad are successfully terrorising the entire Iranian elite. Even Khameni knows the evil Jews can get him, if Trump gives the nod
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of islamofascists. Deploy the micro-violins
They can precisely target an individual 1,500km and two countries away but feel the need to indiscriminately fire missiles and shell people desperately waiting for the food to keep themselves alive. That's cutting them an inordinate amount of slack.
Hamas can throw in the towel at any time. They choose not to.
Mossad are successfully terrorising the entire Iranian elite. Even Khameni knows the evil Jews can get him, if Trump gives the nod
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of islamofascists. Deploy the micro-violins
They can precisely target an individual 1,500km and two countries away but feel the need to indiscriminately fire missiles and shell people desperately waiting for the food to keep themselves alive. That's cutting them an inordinate amount of slack.
Except its not indiscriminate, if it was there'd be millions dead.
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
If you're a country, and Mr X is at war with you, you do.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
I can't deny hostility towards Israel is hideous. I am questioning whether the reaction is often an over reaction for wider political agendas of some political players on Israel.
You are very like Jeremy Corbyn as you seem unable to differentiate Jewish people and what is best for Israel in the long term and Netanyahu's immediate political expediency and avoidance of judicial jeopardy.
I absolutely differentiate between them.
I would like to see Israel's enemies be defeated. Some people here seem to find that an utterly alien concept.
That belief has nothing to do with Netanyahu whom I would love to see imprisoned for corruption.
But even a broken clock can be right. When it comes to warfare, Netanyahu is currently doing the right thing . . . partially putting to rights the wrongs done by . . . Netanyahu.
If you believe attack is the best form of defence, Israel have the measure of this.
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
Quite. Is it still a British colony whereby we send in a team of 'proper doctors' when the locals can't cope?
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
Quite. Is it still a British colony whereby we send in a team of 'proper doctors' when the locals can't cope?
I thought the norm was for Indian doctors to come to work in Britain?
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
Sky are rather hostile to the current Government, so this non-story fulfills a cheap and easy attack on the Government.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
If you're a country, and Mr X is at war with you, you do.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
I can't deny hostility towards Israel is hideous. I am questioning whether the reaction is often an over reaction for wider political agendas of some political players on Israel.
You are very like Jeremy Corbyn as you seem unable to differentiate Jewish people and what is best for Israel in the long term and Netanyahu's immediate political expediency and avoidance of judicial jeopardy.
I absolutely differentiate between them.
I would like to see Israel's enemies be defeated. Some people here seem to find that an utterly alien concept.
That belief has nothing to do with Netanyahu whom I would love to see imprisoned for corruption.
But even a broken clock can be right. When it comes to warfare, Netanyahu is currently doing the right thing . . . partially putting to rights the wrongs done by . . . Netanyahu.
If you believe attack is the best form of defence, Israel have the measure of this.
There are times that it is, yes. This is one of them. Good luck to Israel, I hope they vanquish their foes.
Catherine Belton @CatherineBelton · 15h As Israel expands its attacks deeper into Iran, nervousness is growing in Russia that the Israeli attacks could lead to regime change in Iran & the potential loss of one of Russia’s most important allies in its efforts to create an “anti-Western alliance”
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
If you're a country, and Mr X is at war with you, you do.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
I can't deny hostility towards Israel is hideous. I am questioning whether the reaction is often an over reaction for wider political agendas of some political players on Israel.
You are very like Jeremy Corbyn as you seem unable to differentiate Jewish people and what is best for Israel in the long term and Netanyahu's immediate political expediency and avoidance of judicial jeopardy.
I absolutely differentiate between them.
I would like to see Israel's enemies be defeated. Some people here seem to find that an utterly alien concept.
That belief has nothing to do with Netanyahu whom I would love to see imprisoned for corruption.
But even a broken clock can be right. When it comes to warfare, Netanyahu is currently doing the right thing . . . partially putting to rights the wrongs done by . . . Netanyahu.
If you believe attack is the best form of defence, Israel have the measure of this.
There are times that it is, yes. This is one of them. Good luck to Israel, I hope they vanquish their foes.
All power to Bibi's elbow, and to hell with the poor hostages.
Catherine Belton @CatherineBelton · 15h As Israel expands its attacks deeper into Iran, nervousness is growing in Russia that the Israeli attacks could lead to regime change in Iran & the potential loss of one of Russia’s most important allies in its efforts to create an “anti-Western alliance”
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
If you're a country, and Mr X is at war with you, you do.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
I can't deny hostility towards Israel is hideous. I am questioning whether the reaction is often an over reaction for wider political agendas of some political players on Israel.
You are very like Jeremy Corbyn as you seem unable to differentiate Jewish people and what is best for Israel in the long term and Netanyahu's immediate political expediency and avoidance of judicial jeopardy.
I absolutely differentiate between them.
I would like to see Israel's enemies be defeated. Some people here seem to find that an utterly alien concept.
That belief has nothing to do with Netanyahu whom I would love to see imprisoned for corruption.
But even a broken clock can be right. When it comes to warfare, Netanyahu is currently doing the right thing . . . partially putting to rights the wrongs done by . . . Netanyahu.
If you believe attack is the best form of defence, Israel have the measure of this.
There are times that it is, yes. This is one of them. Good luck to Israel, I hope they vanquish their foes.
All power to Bibi's elbow, and to hell with the poor hostages.
Again, Hamas can surrender and release the hostages at any time.
Catherine Belton @CatherineBelton · 15h As Israel expands its attacks deeper into Iran, nervousness is growing in Russia that the Israeli attacks could lead to regime change in Iran & the potential loss of one of Russia’s most important allies in its efforts to create an “anti-Western alliance”
There used to something called Edmund’s widget which could put certain posters on ignore, but that was another country and besides I fear the widget is dead.
It was great, you could proudly announce that you had X on ignore and then keep on reminding folk that you had X on ignore.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
If you're a country, and Mr X is at war with you, you do.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
I can't deny hostility towards Israel is hideous. I am questioning whether the reaction is often an over reaction for wider political agendas of some political players on Israel.
You are very like Jeremy Corbyn as you seem unable to differentiate Jewish people and what is best for Israel in the long term and Netanyahu's immediate political expediency and avoidance of judicial jeopardy.
I absolutely differentiate between them.
I would like to see Israel's enemies be defeated. Some people here seem to find that an utterly alien concept.
That belief has nothing to do with Netanyahu whom I would love to see imprisoned for corruption.
But even a broken clock can be right. When it comes to warfare, Netanyahu is currently doing the right thing . . . partially putting to rights the wrongs done by . . . Netanyahu.
If you believe attack is the best form of defence, Israel have the measure of this.
There are times that it is, yes. This is one of them. Good luck to Israel, I hope they vanquish their foes.
All power to Bibi's elbow, and to hell with the poor hostages.
Again, Hamas can surrender and release the hostages at any time.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Yes it is, absolutely.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
I suppose that all hinges on how one defines "unprovoked".
How about defining it as countries that have not declared war against Israel, not attacked Israel either directly or indirectly, not allowed their land to be used by organisations dedicated to attacking Israel, or set themselves up to do any of the above?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
Are you aware of the language used by the likes of Smotrich and Ben Gvir?
How about answering the question rather than engaging in whatabouterism?
I don't believe the question is as simple as you believe.
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
If you're a country, and Mr X is at war with you, you do.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
I can't deny hostility towards Israel is hideous. I am questioning whether the reaction is often an over reaction for wider political agendas of some political players on Israel.
You are very like Jeremy Corbyn as you seem unable to differentiate Jewish people and what is best for Israel in the long term and Netanyahu's immediate political expediency and avoidance of judicial jeopardy.
I absolutely differentiate between them.
I would like to see Israel's enemies be defeated. Some people here seem to find that an utterly alien concept.
That belief has nothing to do with Netanyahu whom I would love to see imprisoned for corruption.
But even a broken clock can be right. When it comes to warfare, Netanyahu is currently doing the right thing . . . partially putting to rights the wrongs done by . . . Netanyahu.
If you believe attack is the best form of defence, Israel have the measure of this.
There are times that it is, yes. This is one of them. Good luck to Israel, I hope they vanquish their foes.
All power to Bibi's elbow, and to hell with the poor hostages.
Again, Hamas can surrender and release the hostages at any time.
You should never negotiate with hostage takers.
Too late for that
Indeed, Bibi was wrong to negotiate with Hamas, I never endorsed that. You should never negotiate with hostage takers.
Keep pounding them until they surrender unconditionally? Yes. Negotiate? Never.
There used to something called Edmund’s widget which could put certain posters on ignore, but that was another country and besides I fear the widget is dead.
It was great, you could proudly announce that you had X on ignore and then keep on reminding folk that you had X on ignore.
There used to something called Edmund’s widget which could put certain posters on ignore, but that was another country and besides I fear the widget is dead.
It was great, you could proudly announce that you had X on ignore and then keep on reminding folk that you had X on ignore.
That was created to work on the commenting system that was used before Disqus, if I remember correctly. Long in abeyance.
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
While I agree, people often have unreasonable expectations of government to do everything, but
"We are forced to make appointments to see consular staff based 20 minutes away in a hotel, while our loved ones lie unidentified in an overstretched and under-resourced hospital."
"We're not asking for miracles - we're asking for presence, for compassion, for action," another family member said.
"Right now, we feel utterly abandoned."
It goes to something Rory Sutherland has talked about. If there is a vacuum of information people start to get very angry and demand everything last week. If you have good communications e.g. tell people ahead of time why a plane is delayed and how long that delay will be, behavioural scientists have shown people react much more positively and they often enough even really don't recall they were delayed (obviously if it 36hrs of hell then of course, but an hour not really). That is why all the airlines are very proactive on sending push notifications on changes to travel times.
I imagine sending a person to make contact in person, give them their WhatsApp number and say message me if you need anything, would probably have been more than enough.
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms. Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms. Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
It's one of the largest losses of life of British citizens / permanent residents in one place at the same time, that I can recall.
I think I would be offering some more visible support, whether obliged to or not.
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
While I agree, people often have unreasonable expectations of government to do everything, but
"We are forced to make appointments to see consular staff based 20 minutes away in a hotel, while our loved ones lie unidentified in an overstretched and under-resourced hospital."
"We're not asking for miracles - we're asking for presence, for compassion, for action," another family member said.
"Right now, we feel utterly abandoned."
It goes to something Rory Sutherland has talked about. If there is a vacuum of information people start to get very angry and demand everything last week. If you have good communications e.g. tell people ahead of time why a plane is delayed and how long that delay will be, behavioural scientists have shown people react much more positively and they often enough even really don't recall they were delayed (obviously if it 36hrs of hell then of course, but an hour not really). That is why all the airlines are very proactive on sending push notifications on changes to travel times.
I imagine sending a person to make contact in person, give them their WhatsApp number and say message me if you need anything, would probably have been more than enough.
Yes, agreed. These are obviously very traumatised people. However, their trauma may be such that no amount of communication will satisfy them.
They are complaining that consular staff are 20 minutes away from the hospital. 20 minutes away. That’s not a long distance. And what do they think the consular staff can do?
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
While I agree, people often have unreasonable expectations of government to do everything, but
"We are forced to make appointments to see consular staff based 20 minutes away in a hotel, while our loved ones lie unidentified in an overstretched and under-resourced hospital."
"We're not asking for miracles - we're asking for presence, for compassion, for action," another family member said.
"Right now, we feel utterly abandoned."
It goes to something Rory Sutherland has talked about. If there is a vacuum of information people start to get very angry and demand everything last week. If you have good communications e.g. tell people ahead of time why a plane is delayed and how long that delay will be, behavioural scientists have shown people react much more positively and they often enough even really don't recall they were delayed (obviously if it 36hrs of hell then of course, but an hour not really). That is why all the airlines are very proactive on sending push notifications on changes to travel times.
I imagine sending a person to make contact in person, give them their WhatsApp number and say message me if you need anything, would probably have been more than enough.
Yes, agreed. These are obviously very traumatised people. However, their trauma may be such that no amount of communication will satisfy them.
They are complaining that consular staff are 20 minutes away from the hospital. 20 minutes away. That’s not a long distance. And what do they think the consular staff can do?
20 mins if you can't have a car in a foreign country can be a pain, the last thing you want to do doing is working out how to book an appointment, how to get there, etc. Also as I say, it isn't what they can do, it is that somebody has proactively reached out that makes the difference. And you don't know, there could be really small ease of life things they can provide help with, a simple as these are places that will deliver food to you, or there is a good restaurant just around the corner.
The plane example, the airline can't magic up fixing the delay, often the plane isn't even at the airport and it is totally out of their control. Its the fact the airlines reaches out proactively with push notifications to tell you this that has been shown to have a positive impact on customer satisfaction / cuts down on the numbers going absolutely apeshit at their staff.
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
While I agree, people often have unreasonable expectations of government to do everything, but
"We are forced to make appointments to see consular staff based 20 minutes away in a hotel, while our loved ones lie unidentified in an overstretched and under-resourced hospital."
"We're not asking for miracles - we're asking for presence, for compassion, for action," another family member said.
"Right now, we feel utterly abandoned."
It goes to something Rory Sutherland has talked about. If there is a vacuum of information people start to get very angry and demand everything last week. If you have good communications e.g. tell people ahead of time why a plane is delayed and how long that delay will be, behavioural scientists have shown people react much more positively and they often enough even really don't recall they were delayed (obviously if it 36hrs of hell then of course, but an hour not really). That is why all the airlines are very proactive on sending push notifications on changes to travel times.
I imagine sending a person to make contact in person, give them their WhatsApp number and say message me if you need anything, would probably have been more than enough.
Yes, agreed. These are obviously very traumatised people. However, their trauma may be such that no amount of communication will satisfy them.
They are complaining that consular staff are 20 minutes away from the hospital. 20 minutes away. That’s not a long distance. And what do they think the consular staff can do?
Personally I think the media should refrain from amplifying their complaints. These are people who have lost loved ones and are going through desperately traumatic times, of course they wish more was being done. I’m not convinced public discourse is served well by reporting it at all.
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms. Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
The solution is always growth. Get growth these problems can be addressed.
Making named civil servants accountable was a plot line in Yes, Minister (and although progress updates might have some limited merit, they'd end up as tractor stats or distorted priorities).
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
While I agree, people often have unreasonable expectations of government to do everything, but
"We are forced to make appointments to see consular staff based 20 minutes away in a hotel, while our loved ones lie unidentified in an overstretched and under-resourced hospital."
"We're not asking for miracles - we're asking for presence, for compassion, for action," another family member said.
"Right now, we feel utterly abandoned."
It goes to something Rory Sutherland has talked about. If there is a vacuum of information people start to get very angry and demand everything last week. If you have good communications e.g. tell people ahead of time why a plane is delayed and how long that delay will be, behavioural scientists have shown people react much more positively and they often enough even really don't recall they were delayed (obviously if it 36hrs of hell then of course, but an hour not really). That is why all the airlines are very proactive on sending push notifications on changes to travel times.
I imagine sending a person to make contact in person, give them their WhatsApp number and say message me if you need anything, would probably have been more than enough.
Yes, agreed. These are obviously very traumatised people. However, their trauma may be such that no amount of communication will satisfy them.
They are complaining that consular staff are 20 minutes away from the hospital. 20 minutes away. That’s not a long distance. And what do they think the consular staff can do?
Personally I think the media should refrain from amplifying their complaints. These are people who have lost loved ones and are going through desperately traumatic times, of course they wish more was being done. I’m not convinced public discourse is served well by reporting it at all.
The media are super annoying with anything like this.
Remember Hague getting absolutely blasted by the media who searched out every possible ex-pat with an axe to grind in Libya....when most had no idea that rather than being abandoned the SAS were sitting outside their compounds eliminating anybody who came near, while other units were securing a runway for their escape.
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms. Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms. Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
While I agree, people often have unreasonable expectations of government to do everything, but
"We are forced to make appointments to see consular staff based 20 minutes away in a hotel, while our loved ones lie unidentified in an overstretched and under-resourced hospital."
"We're not asking for miracles - we're asking for presence, for compassion, for action," another family member said.
"Right now, we feel utterly abandoned."
It goes to something Rory Sutherland has talked about. If there is a vacuum of information people start to get very angry and demand everything last week. If you have good communications e.g. tell people ahead of time why a plane is delayed and how long that delay will be, behavioural scientists have shown people react much more positively and they often enough even really don't recall they were delayed (obviously if it 36hrs of hell then of course, but an hour not really). That is why all the airlines are very proactive on sending push notifications on changes to travel times.
I imagine sending a person to make contact in person, give them their WhatsApp number and say message me if you need anything, would probably have been more than enough.
Yes, agreed. These are obviously very traumatised people. However, their trauma may be such that no amount of communication will satisfy them.
They are complaining that consular staff are 20 minutes away from the hospital. 20 minutes away. That’s not a long distance. And what do they think the consular staff can do?
Personally I think the media should refrain from amplifying their complaints. These are people who have lost loved ones and are going through desperately traumatic times, of course they wish more was being done. I’m not convinced public discourse is served well by reporting it at all.
Public discourse is not improved by 24 hour news full stop.
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
50+ victims were British citizens.
So say it had happened in Birmingham - would we be expecting an Indian medical team to fly over to here?
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms. Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
In other words, the most patriotic thing the opposition can do right now is make themselves unelectable enough that the next election is a boring walkover. (One of Blair's failures was to largely fail to seize the opportunity presented to him by Hague, IDS and Howard.)
On that basis, the Conservatives are being true patriots right now.
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms. Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
The transition won't be pretty, but the last one is exactly what the country needs. One of the problems that the British nation has is an unwillingness to automate work- just throw badly-paid bodies at the problem instead. So productivity is rubbish and we need uncomfortable amounts of immigration to keep the plates spinning.
BBC BREAKING NEWS...Yellow Health Alert, temperature sets to be 28o in London this week, maybe getting up to 33o by the weekend...
Are we getting a bit silly with these, its not 40+. Most people have been on a foreign holiday to Europe in the summer where it is that hot every day.
Absolutely, its not a heatwave, its summer.
The best complaint is about how the temp is depicted on weather maps. Some providers have extremely red colours at relatively low temps (e.g. 26 deg C etc) and it drives the climate sceptics/deniers MAD! Literally MAD. Makes them quite 26 deg C in the face.
BBC BREAKING NEWS...Yellow Health Alert, temperature sets to be 28o in London this week, maybe getting up to 33o by the weekend...
Are we getting a bit silly with these, its not 40+. Most people have been on a foreign holiday to Europe in the summer where it is that hot every day.
Absolutely, its not a heatwave, its summer.
Mortality is far far worse in hot weather than in cold for the elderly. We don't do summer air con payments though.
Few years ago now but at the time I started writing for a new client and had to cry off my very first day of work because of the heat. Luckily it was the hottest day recorded ever in the UK, so that did at least make it look more reasonable and a bit less wet blanket.
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms. Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
In other words, the most patriotic thing the opposition can do right now is make themselves unelectable enough that the next election is a boring walkover. (One of Blair's failures was to largely fail to seize the opportunity presented to him by Hague, IDS and Howard.)
On that basis, the Conservatives are being true patriots right now.
China doesn't take a decade to build new energy plants, I'm not sure why we should.
BBC BREAKING NEWS...Yellow Health Alert, temperature sets to be 28o in London this week, maybe getting up to 33o by the weekend...
Are we getting a bit silly with these, its not 40+. Most people have been on a foreign holiday to Europe in the summer where it is that hot every day.
Absolutely, its not a heatwave, its summer.
Mortality is far far worse in hot weather than in cold for the elderly. We don't do summer air con payments though.
Few years ago now but at the time I started writing for a new client and had to cry off my very first day of work because of the heat. Luckily it was the hottest day recorded ever in the UK, so that did at least make it look more reasonable and a bit less wet blanket.
My office becomes unbearable in the afternoon sun in summer. Son is at nursery three days a week so hard to work from home (as the nursery is AT work...) Not ideal. Lucky I've got an air-conned lab in the basement!
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms. Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
The transition won't be pretty, but the last one is exactly what the country needs. One of the problems that the British nation has is an unwillingness to automate work- just throw badly-paid bodies at the problem instead. So productivity is rubbish and we need uncomfortable amounts of immigration to keep the plates spinning.
Actually a huge problem is turn over taxes that has a disproportionate effect on small businesses. Everybody knows why governments have focused more and more on turn over taxes to catch the mega-corps who can quite easily avoid taxes on profits, but it has hit hard small businesses who have a large tax bill for just existing and has put automation / cap-ex on the back burner when they can just hire some cheap labour on zero hour contracts.
The worry is the government has made labour more expensive but turn over taxes are also going up e.g. removal of the business rates discount.
Comments
Lebanon strategy being repeated.
Israel attacked Lebanon too.
Israel has fought countries that have chosen to go to war against it, such as Syria, Egypt and Transjordan but they've not attacked any unprovoked.
https://obr.uk/box/economic-cycles-and-the-long-term-projections/
Or a different Syria?
Funny how you keep getting this selective amnesia and forgetting that Syria and Israel are at war. I wonder why that is?
And would that be the same Lebanon that has been, via Hezbollah, attacking Israel or a different Lebanon?
Is there any that Israel has attacked unprovoked under that definition?
When did Syria declare war on Israel? It was decades ago and while there had never been a peace treaty, there was a UN-mediated ceasefire decades ago. The new Syrian government had nothing to do with those decisions decades ago and was making peaceful overtures to Israel. Israel still invaded a UN buffer zone and then Syrian territory. Israel didn’t even claim they were doing so because of any threat to Israel.
Past events do not give Israel carte blanche to do whatever they want for ever more.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/17/starmer-rural-broadband-defence-spending/
You believe the new Syrian government were making overtures. I believe the new Syrian government is consisting of people whom until recently the UK (let alone Israeli) government proscribed as fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.
So a country they are at war with is taken over by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and you wish to set all that aside because of overtures?
Get real!
It's like suggesting Mr X says he doesn't like me so I have the right to burn Mr X's house down.
So from your lack of answers I take it we can agree then that Israel has never attacked another country unprovoked.
So literally everything could be put in the defence bucket.
This is like when Mandy claimed 100,000s of green jobs that included shoe makers because they made some vegan leather options...didn't it even include petrol pump attendents?
BRACEEEEEEEEEEEE
The fighting has already begun.
Sadiq Khan - Why London Is So Hard to Run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE2ReKqT1JQ
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14817427/ANDREW-NEIL-Irans-dictators-one-final-suicidal-weapon-threatening-unleash-spell-end-plunge-millions-chaos-suffering.html
Edit - nothing im sure to do with the electronic interference and jamming being run in the area
You are very like Jeremy Corbyn as you seem unable to differentiate Jewish people and what is best for Israel in the long term and Netanyahu's immediate political expediency and avoidance of judicial jeopardy.
But with America blighted by Taco Trump, who knows?
https://news.sky.com/story/we-feel-utterly-abandoned-families-of-british-air-india-crash-victims-criticise-uk-governments-response-13384497
I would like to see Israel's enemies be defeated. Some people here seem to find that an utterly alien concept.
That belief has nothing to do with Netanyahu whom I would love to see imprisoned for corruption.
But even a broken clock can be right. When it comes to warfare, Netanyahu is currently doing the right thing . . . partially putting to rights the wrongs done by . . . Netanyahu.
“ "There is no UK leadership here, no medical team, no crisis professionals stationed at the hospital," said a family spokesperson.”
I’m not certain why there should be a UK medical team or crisis professionals stationed at a hospital in India. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy for the families, but these things are not the responsibility of the UK government, are they?
Will assume if I get no replies, that there is an ignore button and it's working well.
https://success.vanillaforums.com/kb/articles/117-ignore-users
@CatherineBelton
·
15h
As Israel expands its attacks deeper into Iran, nervousness is growing in Russia that the Israeli attacks could lead to regime change in Iran & the potential loss of one of Russia’s most important allies in its efforts to create an “anti-Western alliance”
https://x.com/CatherineBelton/status/1934698367113687247
Oh dear how sad etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFM6L6TopsM
You should never negotiate with hostage takers.
AWKWARD !
It was great, you could proudly announce that you had X on ignore and then keep on reminding folk that you had X on ignore.
Keep pounding them until they surrender unconditionally? Yes.
Negotiate? Never.
"We are forced to make appointments to see consular staff based 20 minutes away in a hotel, while our loved ones lie unidentified in an overstretched and under-resourced hospital."
"We're not asking for miracles - we're asking for presence, for compassion, for action," another family member said.
"Right now, we feel utterly abandoned."
It goes to something Rory Sutherland has talked about. If there is a vacuum of information people start to get very angry and demand everything last week. If you have good communications e.g. tell people ahead of time why a plane is delayed and how long that delay will be, behavioural scientists have shown people react much more positively and they often enough even really don't recall they were delayed (obviously if it 36hrs of hell then of course, but an hour not really). That is why all the airlines are very proactive on sending push notifications on changes to travel times.
I imagine sending a person to make contact in person, give them their WhatsApp number and say message me if you need anything, would probably have been more than enough.
Theo Bertram
@theobertram
·
3h
The Catch 22 of British politics is that to win a second term you need to tackle the cost of living but to tackle the underlying causes of the cost of living (increase housing supply, build new energy plants) you need two terms.
Theo Bertram
@theobertram
·
3h
Solving this Catch 22 is the key to avoiding a doom loop of failed progress & populism. Part of my answer would be to make Permanent Secretaries not only accountable for progress on 10 year goals but for public confidence in those goals. Progress needs to be metered & clear.
https://x.com/theobertram/status/1934882411994558905
Oh.
https://x.com/haaretzcom/status/1934923546960035992?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ
Oh well, this’ll keep Barty happy.
I think I would be offering some more visible support, whether obliged to or not.
They are complaining that consular staff are 20 minutes away from the hospital. 20 minutes away. That’s not a long distance. And what do they think the consular staff can do?
The plane example, the airline can't magic up fixing the delay, often the plane isn't even at the airport and it is totally out of their control. Its the fact the airlines reaches out proactively with push notifications to tell you this that has been shown to have a positive impact on customer satisfaction / cuts down on the numbers going absolutely apeshit at their staff.
Sauron was highly skilled. Say what you like about him, but he was a pretty fantastic goldsmith. He certainly never bankrupted a casino.
Are we getting a bit silly with these, its not 40+. Most people have been on a foreign holiday to Europe in the summer where it is that hot every day.
Remember Hague getting absolutely blasted by the media who searched out every possible ex-pat with an axe to grind in Libya....when most had no idea that rather than being abandoned the SAS were sitting outside their compounds eliminating anybody who came near, while other units were securing a runway for their escape.
Read the highlights from our new survey of 500 British business owners
51% have already or will freeze pay.
59% are planning to cut hours.
59% are looking to automation to replace staff.
https://www.swgroup.com/insights-events/insights/the-sw-business-owners-sentiment-survey/
Its a mad complaint.
On that basis, the Conservatives are being true patriots right now.
The worry is the government has made labour more expensive but turn over taxes are also going up e.g. removal of the business rates discount.