OT - Nostalgia for the 2019 pact? Except that wasn't a pact - one party withdrew from the majority of seats. Which of the two parties does anyone think will agree to that? Even if Reform folded up their tents (and it would have to be them) hiow many of their voters would vote for the Cons rather than Rupert?
I’d not expect Restore to get too many in that situation. I believe those going to Restore because Reform is too left wing have gone already and in a GE where there’s no Restore candidate they’d not vote,
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Isn't the issue that Europeans decided a while ago that negotiation is better than violence, but a lot of countries to the East of us, they think "sure, but violence works," and that is empirically true.
When Reform surged in the polls we were earnestly told we must listen to their voters' legitimate concerns and reshape policies to cater to them. For the Greens, and indeed Corbyn beforehand, they are just a bunch of student trots not living in the real world, whose concerns are entirely fantasies of their own imaginations.
Yet their concerns, or some of them, are being addressed, on housing there’s the RRB, on student tuition fees there is reform of students tuition fees, budgets have introduced some taxes on wealth. The so-called mansion tax. Putting pension pots into scope of IHT.
When it comes to Gaza and the Middle East this govt has been far less supporting of the Israeli regime than previous govts and has moderated its approach since coming to power.
When it comes to the reform of the planning laws promised, again a major Green issue, this has been watered down.
They have concerns which have been listened to. Whether it’s adequate is another matter.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
Someone upthread suggested we should suspend trade and esp. any arms dealing with Israel.
I’m not so sure of that.
The world is a much more fucked up place than it was in my young adulthood. Britain can’t be some smug peacenik, it’s has to work with the world as it is. Britain needs to treat Israel as it does China, a country to be wary of, but with which there is much to transact.
Orbán's last campaign rally ended in a disaster in Debrecen. People showed up not to support him, but to take a last glimpse of the fallen autocratic leader and to say one last time: ORBÁN F*** OFF! https://x.com/SzabadonMagyar/status/2042566531607908768
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
The elephant in the room is that Nigel's not getting any younger, and this isn't America.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
Interesting that PMs in the first half of the 20th century were significantly older when they came to power than since then.
The oldest of course was Churchill in his second term at almost 77.
Average age of PM on assuming office (including second stints)
Balfour - Churchill 2 : 62 Eden - Thatcher : 57 Major - Starmer : 50
Starmer is the oldest PM at time of first assuming office since Callaghan
Is Starmer the first PM to have made it to the top of two professions? (top of the legal profession debatable, but DPP is the top of that bit of it).
I had this discussion a while back and I think Boris Johnson counts with his stint as editor of The Spectator.
Edit this discussion was in relation to Mark Carney.
Wellington, surely?
Doesn’t count, he was a mere Field-Marshal, top of the tree would be Marshal, like Philippe Pétain.
He was Commander in Chief of the Army twice. Not sure how much higher he could get?
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
No it isn’t because my point is that Israel gets criticised but nobody else does. Everything Israel says is a lie and everything Hamas or Hezbollah says is true. The hypocrisy stinks.
Show me a comment where someone has uncritically quoted something Hezbollah said. I don’t think anyone here is claiming that Hezbollah, or Hamas, are reliable sources.
Read this thread. I share evidence of Hezbollah war crimes and @Sunil_Prasannan et al respond with “well they shouldn’t kill so many people”
In fact a lot of evidence of Israel war crimes are just from random people tweeting and they are taken as read.
Sunil was not saying Hezbollah are a reliable source.
Random people tweeting are often unreliable, but again that doesn’t show anyone claiming Hezbollah are a reliable source.
Correct, Sunil simply posts Hezbollah talking points without source.
What Hezbollah talking points?
You deny Israel has murdered thousands in Gaza, the West Bank, and now in Lebanon?
To be frank I have no idea how many are civilians and how many are combatants and I am pretty sure you don’t know either.
More importantly Israel neither knows nor cares who are civilians and who are combatants. They just declare all killed male adults as combatants. They aren't the only ones to do this.
Someone upthread suggested we should suspend trade and esp. any arms dealing with Israel.
I’m not so sure of that.
The world is a much more fucked up place than it was in my young adulthood. Britain can’t be some smug peacenik, it’s has to work with the world as it is. Britain needs to treat Israel as it does China, a country to be wary of, but with which there is much to transact.
We don’t export much in terms of arms to them anyway. Suspending trade in arms would achieve nothing.
I’d agree with your last sentence too.
Israel has, in better times, been a great innovator and these awful times won’t last forever.
When Reform surged in the polls we were earnestly told we must listen to their voters' legitimate concerns and reshape policies to cater to them. For the Greens, and indeed Corbyn beforehand, they are just a bunch of student trots not living in the real world, whose concerns are entirely fantasies of their own imaginations.
The sane response is to come up with non-Reform (and non-Green) solutions to the issues they raise.
For example, some of the opposition to the new mega-solar farms is down to
- flat, higher quality farming land for the projects (easier to implement) - no local benefit - removal of access to fields
So
- emphasis or incentives to use lower grade land, - free ‘leccy for the locals - defined paths through some fields/sites?
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
The elephant in the room is that Nigel's not getting any younger, and this isn't America.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
Interesting that PMs in the first half of the 20th century were significantly older when they came to power than since then.
The oldest of course was Churchill in his second term at almost 77.
Average age of PM on assuming office (including second stints)
Balfour - Churchill 2 : 62 Eden - Thatcher : 57 Major - Starmer : 50
Starmer is the oldest PM at time of first assuming office since Callaghan
Is Starmer the first PM to have made it to the top of two professions? (top of the legal profession debatable, but DPP is the top of that bit of it).
I had this discussion a while back and I think Boris Johnson counts with his stint as editor of The Spectator.
Edit this discussion was in relation to Mark Carney.
Wellington, surely?
Doesn’t count, he was a mere Field-Marshal, top of the tree would be Marshal, like Philippe Pétain.
He was Commander in Chief of the Army twice. Not sure how much higher he could get?
Orbán's last campaign rally ended in a disaster in Debrecen. People showed up not to support him, but to take a last glimpse of the fallen autocratic leader and to say one last time: ORBÁN F*** OFF! https://x.com/SzabadonMagyar/status/2042566531607908768
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Isn't the issue that Europeans decided a while ago that negotiation is better than violence, but a lot of countries to the East of us, they think "sure, but violence works," and that is empirically true.
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Someone upthread suggested we should suspend trade and esp. any arms dealing with Israel.
I’m not so sure of that.
The world is a much more fucked up place than it was in my young adulthood. Britain can’t be some smug peacenik, it’s has to work with the world as it is. Britain needs to treat Israel as it does China, a country to be wary of, but with which there is much to transact.
In theory yes, but I'm not sure what our common ground with Israel is at the moment. They are acting comprehensively against our interests, and pretty much of everyone else, maybe even of themselves. At least with China we have a common interest in reopening Hormuz.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
Gloucestershire having a long miserable day chasing leather here. McKinney has had moments of luck but he’s played some quite gorgeous shots. Looks a very good player, far better than bloody Crawley for sure.
Someone upthread suggested we should suspend trade and esp. any arms dealing with Israel.
I’m not so sure of that.
The world is a much more fucked up place than it was in my young adulthood. Britain can’t be some smug peacenik, it’s has to work with the world as it is. Britain needs to treat Israel as it does China, a country to be wary of, but with which there is much to transact.
In theory yes, but I'm not sure what our common ground with Israel is at the moment. They are acting comprehensively against our interests, and pretty much of everyone else, maybe even of themselves. At least with China we have a common interest in reopening Hormuz.
Not getting at you, but it does puzzle me somewhat that there are people who - perfectly fairly - criticise Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians while ignoring China’s far greater and more systemic murder of the Uighers.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
Whilst keeping firmly in mind that one day, perhaps very soon, America won't either.
Someone upthread suggested we should suspend trade and esp. any arms dealing with Israel.
I’m not so sure of that.
The world is a much more fucked up place than it was in my young adulthood. Britain can’t be some smug peacenik, it’s has to work with the world as it is. Britain needs to treat Israel as it does China, a country to be wary of, but with which there is much to transact.
In theory yes, but I'm not sure what our common ground with Israel is at the moment. They are acting comprehensively against our interests, and pretty much of everyone else, maybe even of themselves. At least with China we have a common interest in reopening Hormuz.
Not getting at you, but it does puzzle me somewhat that there are people who - perfectly fairly - criticise Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians while ignoring China’s far greater and more systemic murder of the Uighers.
Someone upthread suggested we should suspend trade and esp. any arms dealing with Israel.
I’m not so sure of that.
The world is a much more fucked up place than it was in my young adulthood. Britain can’t be some smug peacenik, it’s has to work with the world as it is. Britain needs to treat Israel as it does China, a country to be wary of, but with which there is much to transact.
In theory yes, but I'm not sure what our common ground with Israel is at the moment. They are acting comprehensively against our interests, and pretty much of everyone else, maybe even of themselves. At least with China we have a common interest in reopening Hormuz.
Israel has great military and digital tech, and we have a common interest in combating Islamist terror.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
Whilst keeping firmly in mind that one day, perhaps very soon, America won't either.
Sadly that seems like it could be true.
So they need to secure themselves by eliminating their enemies today.
Once the enemies are eliminated then peace can be secured.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
Whilst keeping firmly in mind that one day, perhaps very soon, America won't either.
Sadly that seems like it could be true.
So they need to secure themselves by eliminating their enemies today.
Once the enemies are eliminated then peace can be secured.
When your enemies are all eliminated who is left to make peace with?
Someone upthread suggested we should suspend trade and esp. any arms dealing with Israel.
I’m not so sure of that.
The world is a much more fucked up place than it was in my young adulthood. Britain can’t be some smug peacenik, it’s has to work with the world as it is. Britain needs to treat Israel as it does China, a country to be wary of, but with which there is much to transact.
In theory yes, but I'm not sure what our common ground with Israel is at the moment. They are acting comprehensively against our interests, and pretty much of everyone else, maybe even of themselves. At least with China we have a common interest in reopening Hormuz.
Israel has great military and digital tech, and we have a common interest in combating Islamist terror.
Possibly on the tech but disagree on the second. Without a shadow of doubt Israel aggravates Islamist terror. Israel has a different agenda to the rest of us on this.
I don't propose to find common interest with Iran either to be clear. It's the difference between finding common interest and necessary dealing with bad actors, with both Israel and Iran in the second category.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
Camden SOPNs are out. Reform UK seem to be standing in every ward, but not a full slate in several wards. Greens and Camden People's Alliance (a Your Party-esque thing) have a non-aggression pact and aren't standing against each other. One candidate for "National Housing Party No More Refugees", so competition for Reform there. I think I might make 8th in my ward.
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Isn't the issue that Europeans decided a while ago that negotiation is better than violence, but a lot of countries to the East of us, they think "sure, but violence works," and that is empirically true.
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Given MD and TSE's ongoing arguments about Rome/Carthage, Dubois is evidently wrong.
And which of the Duke and Napoleon has more influence today over Europe's legal systems ?
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
I'm sure peace will come when everyone in Israel has the same rights and votes, including the right to return.
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Isn't the issue that Europeans decided a while ago that negotiation is better than violence, but a lot of countries to the East of us, they think "sure, but violence works," and that is empirically true.
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Given MD and TSE's ongoing arguments about Rome/Carthage, Dubois is evidently wrong.
And which of the Duke and Napoleon has more influence today over Europe's legal systems ?
Carthage got “rm -rf *” by the Romans. That version is so lost to history that we know very little about them.
The map of France is pretty much as Wellington left it. The Napoleonic Empire was erased.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
That's a reversal almost unthinkable even a decade back.
Netenyahu and Trump have been disastrous for the nation, IMO. In some respects Israel is more powerful than it has ever been, but I don't think its future existence has been more precarious since at least the 1970s.
An unusual and important document, signed by a long list of former heads of Israel’s security establishment—Chiefs of Staff, and former directors of the Mossad and Shin Bet, as well as Police Commissioners—warning about the security, political, and moral implications of Jewish violence in the West Bank and the lack of sufficient law enforcement in response. Beyond the normative critique, the document underscores that this constitutes a tangible strategic threat to Israel’s security, particularly during a multi-front war. Worth reading. https://x.com/EranTzidkiyahu/status/2042242586979561957
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
The elephant in the room is that Nigel's not getting any younger, and this isn't America.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
Interesting that PMs in the first half of the 20th century were significantly older when they came to power than since then.
The oldest of course was Churchill in his second term at almost 77.
Average age of PM on assuming office (including second stints)
Balfour - Churchill 2 : 62 Eden - Thatcher : 57 Major - Starmer : 50
Starmer is the oldest PM at time of first assuming office since Callaghan
Is Starmer the first PM to have made it to the top of two professions? (top of the legal profession debatable, but DPP is the top of that bit of it).
I had this discussion a while back and I think Boris Johnson counts with his stint as editor of The Spectator.
Edit this discussion was in relation to Mark Carney.
Wellington, surely?
Doesn’t count, he was a mere Field-Marshal, top of the tree would be Marshal, like Philippe Pétain.
He was Commander in Chief of the Army twice. Not sure how much higher he could get?
Indeed, I was thinking he was much the most unarguably top of his field (in the Army), to the extent that even now 200+ years he is famous in that context, but almost nobody knows he was subsequently Prime Minister. Every other Prime Minster, I would argue, owes their fame to holding that office. Wellington alone doesn't.
And I don't believe any other PM has popularised an item of clothing, either!
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Isn't the issue that Europeans decided a while ago that negotiation is better than violence, but a lot of countries to the East of us, they think "sure, but violence works," and that is empirically true.
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Given MD and TSE's ongoing arguments about Rome/Carthage, Dubois is evidently wrong.
And which of the Duke and Napoleon has more influence today over Europe's legal systems ?
Carthage got “rm -rf *” by the Romans. That version is so lost to history that we know very little about them.
The map of France is pretty much as Wellington left it. The Napoleonic Empire was erased.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
Whilst keeping firmly in mind that one day, perhaps very soon, America won't either.
Sadly that seems like it could be true.
So they need to secure themselves by eliminating their enemies today.
Once the enemies are eliminated then peace can be secured.
When your enemies are all eliminated who is left to make peace with?
The non-enemies that are left, and any former enemies that surrender and lay down their arms unconditionally.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
The elephant in the room is that Nigel's not getting any younger, and this isn't America.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
Interesting that PMs in the first half of the 20th century were significantly older when they came to power than since then.
The oldest of course was Churchill in his second term at almost 77.
Average age of PM on assuming office (including second stints)
Balfour - Churchill 2 : 62 Eden - Thatcher : 57 Major - Starmer : 50
Starmer is the oldest PM at time of first assuming office since Callaghan
Is Starmer the first PM to have made it to the top of two professions? (top of the legal profession debatable, but DPP is the top of that bit of it).
I had this discussion a while back and I think Boris Johnson counts with his stint as editor of The Spectator.
Edit this discussion was in relation to Mark Carney.
Wellington, surely?
Doesn’t count, he was a mere Field-Marshal, top of the tree would be Marshal, like Philippe Pétain.
He was Commander in Chief of the Army twice. Not sure how much higher he could get?
Indeed, I was thinking he was much the most unarguably top of his field (in the Army), to the extent that even now 200+ years he is famous in that context, but almost nobody knows he was subsequently Prime Minister. Every other Prime Minster, I would argue, owes their fame to holding that office. Wellington alone doesn't.
And I don't believe any other PM has popularised an item of clothing, either!
Orbán's last campaign rally ended in a disaster in Debrecen. People showed up not to support him, but to take a last glimpse of the fallen autocratic leader and to say one last time: ORBÁN F*** OFF! https://x.com/SzabadonMagyar/status/2042566531607908768
He’s obviously setting up a ‘stolen election’ narrative, and there appears to be fairly blatant vote rigging going on as well.
It’s a mark of how biblically unpopular he is that we’re even talking about him losing.
Hungarian elections are very much winner takes absolutely everything and this time around his opponent has consolidated the opposition into a single option.
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
The elephant in the room is that Nigel's not getting any younger, and this isn't America.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
Interesting that PMs in the first half of the 20th century were significantly older when they came to power than since then.
The oldest of course was Churchill in his second term at almost 77.
Average age of PM on assuming office (including second stints)
Balfour - Churchill 2 : 62 Eden - Thatcher : 57 Major - Starmer : 50
Starmer is the oldest PM at time of first assuming office since Callaghan
Is Starmer the first PM to have made it to the top of two professions? (top of the legal profession debatable, but DPP is the top of that bit of it).
I had this discussion a while back and I think Boris Johnson counts with his stint as editor of The Spectator.
Edit this discussion was in relation to Mark Carney.
Wellington, surely?
Doesn’t count, he was a mere Field-Marshal, top of the tree would be Marshal, like Philippe Pétain.
He was Commander in Chief of the Army twice. Not sure how much higher he could get?
Indeed, I was thinking he was much the most unarguably top of his field (in the Army), to the extent that even now 200+ years he is famous in that context, but almost nobody knows he was subsequently Prime Minister. Every other Prime Minster, I would argue, owes their fame to holding that office. Wellington alone doesn't.
And I don't believe any other PM has popularised an item of clothing, either!
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
The elephant in the room is that Nigel's not getting any younger, and this isn't America.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
Interesting that PMs in the first half of the 20th century were significantly older when they came to power than since then.
The oldest of course was Churchill in his second term at almost 77.
Average age of PM on assuming office (including second stints)
Balfour - Churchill 2 : 62 Eden - Thatcher : 57 Major - Starmer : 50
Starmer is the oldest PM at time of first assuming office since Callaghan
Is Starmer the first PM to have made it to the top of two professions? (top of the legal profession debatable, but DPP is the top of that bit of it).
I had this discussion a while back and I think Boris Johnson counts with his stint as editor of The Spectator.
Edit this discussion was in relation to Mark Carney.
Wellington, surely?
Doesn’t count, he was a mere Field-Marshal, top of the tree would be Marshal, like Philippe Pétain.
He was Commander in Chief of the Army twice. Not sure how much higher he could get?
Indeed, I was thinking he was much the most unarguably top of his field (in the Army), to the extent that even now 200+ years he is famous in that context, but almost nobody knows he was subsequently Prime Minister. Every other Prime Minster, I would argue, owes their fame to holding that office. Wellington alone doesn't.
And I don't believe any other PM has popularised an item of clothing, either!
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Isn't the issue that Europeans decided a while ago that negotiation is better than violence, but a lot of countries to the East of us, they think "sure, but violence works," and that is empirically true.
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Given MD and TSE's ongoing arguments about Rome/Carthage, Dubois is evidently wrong.
And which of the Duke and Napoleon has more influence today over Europe's legal systems ?
Carthage got “rm -rf *” by the Romans. That version is so lost to history that we know very little about them.
The map of France is pretty much as Wellington left it. The Napoleonic Empire was erased.
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
The elephant in the room is that Nigel's not getting any younger, and this isn't America.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
Interesting that PMs in the first half of the 20th century were significantly older when they came to power than since then.
The oldest of course was Churchill in his second term at almost 77.
Average age of PM on assuming office (including second stints)
Balfour - Churchill 2 : 62 Eden - Thatcher : 57 Major - Starmer : 50
Starmer is the oldest PM at time of first assuming office since Callaghan
Is Starmer the first PM to have made it to the top of two professions? (top of the legal profession debatable, but DPP is the top of that bit of it).
I had this discussion a while back and I think Boris Johnson counts with his stint as editor of The Spectator.
Edit this discussion was in relation to Mark Carney.
Wellington, surely?
Doesn’t count, he was a mere Field-Marshal, top of the tree would be Marshal, like Philippe Pétain.
He was Commander in Chief of the Army twice. Not sure how much higher he could get?
Indeed, I was thinking he was much the most unarguably top of his field (in the Army), to the extent that even now 200+ years he is famous in that context, but almost nobody knows he was subsequently Prime Minister. Every other Prime Minster, I would argue, owes their fame to holding that office. Wellington alone doesn't.
And I don't believe any other PM has popularised an item of clothing, either!
The Palmerston coat ?
Well, every day is a school day on PB. Though whether my not having heard of a Palmerston coat means it's not very well known, or I'm unfashionable, I'll leave to the reader!
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Isn't the issue that Europeans decided a while ago that negotiation is better than violence, but a lot of countries to the East of us, they think "sure, but violence works," and that is empirically true.
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Given MD and TSE's ongoing arguments about Rome/Carthage, Dubois is evidently wrong.
And which of the Duke and Napoleon has more influence today over Europe's legal systems ?
Carthage got “rm -rf *” by the Romans. That version is so lost to history that we know very little about them.
The map of France is pretty much as Wellington left it. The Napoleonic Empire was erased.
You're still arguing. QED.
LOL
But note that the Italians aren't facing calls for reparations. Nasty thought, really, isn't it?
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Isn't the issue that Europeans decided a while ago that negotiation is better than violence, but a lot of countries to the East of us, they think "sure, but violence works," and that is empirically true.
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Given MD and TSE's ongoing arguments about Rome/Carthage, Dubois is evidently wrong.
And which of the Duke and Napoleon has more influence today over Europe's legal systems ?
Carthage got “rm -rf *” by the Romans. That version is so lost to history that we know very little about them.
The map of France is pretty much as Wellington left it. The Napoleonic Empire was erased.
EU ahem!
The EU is run by the Germans.
As Thatcher foresaw, a reunited Germany was the biggest power in Europe again. Which changed the dynamic from the Big Three - France, UK, West Germany. To what we have today.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
Surely both can be true - to a greater or lesser extent. It is certainly true that there has - at least in my living memory - always been a hardcore of people of predominately left wing views who have been very pro-Palestine and anti-Israeli. There has also been a hardcore pro-Israeli group - which has cut across all political stripes.
But there have also been people who generally if not pro-Israeli certainly recognised the unique nature of its formation and the “challenges” of its neighbourhood. They knew that Israel had to act in certain ways to combat the threats it faced, even if they didn’t agree with how the Israeli government chose to go about it.
That was certainly how I tended to think about Israel - and I still do to a certain extent; I couldn’t imagine living in a country where rocket attacks were a daily occurrence. However, given recent behaviour it is getting harder to cut their government any slack. It seems that at every stage they have chosen to ratchet things up and make them worse. Seemingly in pursuit of permanent conflict.
I think there are a lot of people with similar views to mine who are increasingly seeing both sides as bad as each other - and perhaps even considering the Israel administration as the aggressor. Where that ends, who can say. But goodwill lost seldom returns.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
The Persian community in LA is pretty integrated. A Persian Muslim is probably more likely to be friends with a Persian Jew than a Muslim of another ethnicity.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Is there a phobia against Muslins implicit here?
So we’re becoming more anti-Semitic as a nation due to the growth of the Muslim population here ?
I don’t buy that.
I think people are generally turning against Israel due to its actions.
Stuff like this.
Carpet bombing civilian homes in a town in South Lebanon.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Is there a phobia against Muslins implicit here?
No.
Is it a phobia to note that Jewish and Muslim voters have different views on this conflict to each other and always have done? Is it a phobia to note that changing demographics changes opinions?
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Is there a phobia against Muslins implicit here?
So we’re becoming more anti-Semitic as a nation due to the growth of the Muslim population here ?
I don’t buy that.
I think people are generally turning against Israel due to its actions.
Stuff like this.
Carpet bombing civilian homes in a town in South Lebanon.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Is there a phobia against Muslins implicit here?
So we’re becoming more anti-Semitic as a nation due to the growth of the Muslim population here ?
I don’t buy that.
I think people are generally turning against Israel due to its actions.
Stuff like this.
Carpet bombing civilian homes in a town in South Lebanon.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Is there a phobia against Muslins implicit here?
So we’re becoming more anti-Semitic as a nation due to the growth of the Muslim population here ?
I don’t buy that.
I think people are generally turning against Israel due to its actions.
Stuff like this.
Carpet bombing civilian homes in a town in South Lebanon.
If Bibi can keep the carpet bombing of South Lebanon and South Beirut going until Monday he will be obliged to miss an otherwise mandatory and very dangerous (for his future) corruption related court appearance in Tel Aviv.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Is there a phobia against Muslins implicit here?
No.
Is it a phobia to note that Jewish and Muslim voters have different views on this conflict to each other and always have done? Is it a phobia to note that changing demographics changes opinions?
There is an implication that Muslims are antisemitic - a clear implication so no amount of verbal juggling removes it.
Israel is surrounded by theocratic nations some of which are antagonistic to it and in response have adopted similar theocratic baggage. If only they adopted the democratic norms of their American client, they would recognise that equality under the law for all their citizens is the way forward.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Is there a phobia against Muslins implicit here?
So we’re becoming more anti-Semitic as a nation due to the growth of the Muslim population here ?
I don’t buy that.
I think people are generally turning against Israel due to its actions.
Stuff like this.
Carpet bombing civilian homes in a town in South Lebanon.
If Bibi can keep the carpet bombing of South Lebanon and South Beirut going until Monday he will be obliged to miss an otherwise mandatory and very dangerous (for his future) corruption related court appearance in Tel Aviv.
I believe the incubent Reform councillor had been jailed for 12 months after admitting behaving in a controlling and coercive way to his wife. It was once he had to step down the by election was called. The Margate and Cliftonville county seats were won by Labour and UKIP in 2013, so clearly most of the old Labour vote went Green to beat Reform https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxde5e4rngo
I believe the incubent Reform councillor had been jailed for 12 months after admitting behaving in a controlling and coercive way to his wife. It was once he had to step down the by election was called.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
And yet people obsess about Israel. Funny that.
Isn’t this a function of Israel being a functioning democracy? We hold it to higher standards - or at least I kind of do.
I am not surprised when dictatorships (whether notionally communist, monarchies or “illiberal democracies” - which to me is just despotism) treat their minorities abysmally. It is part of their operating model, and it is how the various leaders stay at the top of the tree. I feel sorry for those around the world that have to live in such states.
I think we should be careful in how we interact with them - and if possible favour working wth democracies. But you can’t ignore them and you also can’t go round the world imposing democracy. We’ve tried that before with mixed results.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
And yet people obsess about Israel. Funny that.
Isn’t this a function of Israel being a functioning democracy? We hold it to higher standards - or at least I kind of do.
I am not surprised when dictatorships (whether notionally communist, monarchies or “illiberal democracies” - which to me is just despotism) treat their minorities abysmally. It is part of their operating model, and it is how they leaders stay at the top of the tree. I feel sorry for those around the world that have to live in such states.
I think we should be careful in how we interact with them - and if possible favour working wth democracies. But you can’t ignore them and you also can’t go round the world imposing democracy. We’ve tried that before with mixed results.
Turkey is a democracy and yet how many people demand a state for the Kurds compared to a state for the Palestinians?
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
Israel has always had critics, some of them anti-semitic, but most of us supported them most of the time, because of the historical background of the Holocaust. Their current policy of mass slaughter of neighbours living in the wrong places and indifference to world opinion has alienated most of that support. That's IMO a mistake. and with the Holocaust generation now passed on, Israel shouldn't assume that Jews worldwide (let alone hitherto sympathetic non-Jews) will automatically be supportive regardless.
That's not to say that they should "lay down their arms". But a state permanently seeking conflict with its neighbours is fundamentally risking its future, Rational Israeli leadership has always sought to separate most people in the region from the extremists - not to push them into extremist arms.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Is there a phobia against Muslins implicit here?
So we’re becoming more anti-Semitic as a nation due to the growth of the Muslim population here ?
I don’t buy that.
I think people are generally turning against Israel due to its actions.
Stuff like this.
Carpet bombing civilian homes in a town in South Lebanon.
If Bibi can keep the carpet bombing of South Lebanon and South Beirut going until Monday he will be obliged to miss an otherwise mandatory and very dangerous (for his future) corruption related court appearance in Tel Aviv.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
And yet people obsess about Israel. Funny that.
Isn’t this a function of Israel being a functioning democracy? We hold it to higher standards - or at least I kind of do.
I am not surprised when dictatorships (whether notionally communist, monarchies or “illiberal democracies” - which to me is just despotism) treat their minorities abysmally. It is part of their operating model, and it is how they leaders stay at the top of the tree. I feel sorry for those around the world that have to live in such states.
I think we should be careful in how we interact with them - and if possible favour working wth democracies. But you can’t ignore them and you also can’t go round the world imposing democracy. We’ve tried that before with mixed results.
Turkey is a democracy and yet how many people demand a state for the Kurds compared to a state for the Palestinians?
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
And yet people obsess about Israel. Funny that.
Isn’t this a function of Israel being a functioning democracy? We hold it to higher standards - or at least I kind of do.
I am not surprised when dictatorships (whether notionally communist, monarchies or “illiberal democracies” - which to me is just despotism) treat their minorities abysmally. It is part of their operating model, and it is how they leaders stay at the top of the tree. I feel sorry for those around the world that have to live in such states.
I think we should be careful in how we interact with them - and if possible favour working wth democracies. But you can’t ignore them and you also can’t go round the world imposing democracy. We’ve tried that before with mixed results.
Turkey is a democracy and yet how many people demand a state for the Kurds compared to a state for the Palestinians?
Turkey isn’t thought of as a democracy by many Westerners.
While there’s some truth in there, there is a chunk of racism in there.
I believe the incubent Reform councillor had been jailed for 12 months after admitting behaving in a controlling and coercive way to his wife. It was once he had to step down the by election was called.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
Surely both can be true - to a greater or lesser extent. It is certainly true that there has - at least in my living memory - always been a hardcore of people of predominately left wing views who have been very pro-Palestine and anti-Israeli. There has also been a hardcore pro-Israeli group - which has cut across all political stripes.
But there have also been people who generally if not pro-Israeli certainly recognised the unique nature of its formation and the “challenges” of its neighbourhood. They knew that Israel had to act in certain ways to combat the threats it faced, even if they didn’t agree with how the Israeli government chose to go about it.
That was certainly how I tended to think about Israel - and I still do to a certain extent; I couldn’t imagine living in a country where rocket attacks were a daily occurrence. However, given recent behaviour it is getting harder to cut their government any slack. It seems that at every stage they have chosen to ratchet things up and make them worse. Seemingly in pursuit of permanent conflict.
I think there are a lot of people with similar views to mine who are increasingly seeing both sides as bad as each other - and perhaps even considering the Israel administration as the aggressor. Where that ends, who can say. But goodwill lost seldom returns.
I think it will depend to some degree on what Israel does next.
If they lock Netanyahu up for corruption, hold a proper inquiry into the Yon Kippur attacks and jail those Israeli politicians secretly aiding Hamas for their own ends, plus prosecute soldiers and commanders for war crimes and offer to negotiate with a reconstituted Palestinian Authority then a lot of the rest will be quietly forgotten. The last doesn’t even require them to do anything as the one thing we can say with certainty is the Palestinians will bugger up any attempt at rapprochement, because they always do.
If they do what they did with Sharon over Lebanon and try to sweep the whole thing under the carpet that will be harder.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Is there a phobia against Muslins implicit here?
So we’re becoming more anti-Semitic as a nation due to the growth of the Muslim population here ?
I don’t buy that.
I think people are generally turning against Israel due to its actions.
Stuff like this.
Carpet bombing civilian homes in a town in South Lebanon.
If Bibi can keep the carpet bombing of South Lebanon and South Beirut going until Monday he will be obliged to miss an otherwise mandatory and very dangerous (for his future) corruption related court appearance in Tel Aviv.
Orbán's last campaign rally ended in a disaster in Debrecen. People showed up not to support him, but to take a last glimpse of the fallen autocratic leader and to say one last time: ORBÁN F*** OFF! https://x.com/SzabadonMagyar/status/2042566531607908768
This is THE most important election anywhere in the world, the most important election since the catastrophe of November 24. It's looking good for Magyar, but I won't believe it until I see it.
Now maybe it’s fake. Maybe it’s not a school. But it’s also possible it is true. What is Israel supposed to do about that? Nothing? Ignoring rocket fire wouldn’t be politically acceptable in the UK nor is it in Israel.
As usual, Israel is held to a standard far higher than any other nation on earth.
2 civilians have been killed in Israel by Hezbollah. The Israeli response could be proportional to the threat rather than displacing over a million people.
That is western liberal privilege talking. Iran doesn’t care how “proportionate” their response is when they try to fly drones into Tel Aviv apartment blocks following Israeli attacks. The same is true of every nation at war.
As per, Israel are held to a far higher standard.
This is, essentially, whataboutery. The issue is Israel, not anyone else.
That absolutely isn't true. The issue is Islamists and their fellow travellers in the west who want to wipe Israel off the map.
Isn't the issue that Europeans decided a while ago that negotiation is better than violence, but a lot of countries to the East of us, they think "sure, but violence works," and that is empirically true.
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Given MD and TSE's ongoing arguments about Rome/Carthage, Dubois is evidently wrong.
And which of the Duke and Napoleon has more influence today over Europe's legal systems ?
Carthage got “rm -rf *” by the Romans. That version is so lost to history that we know very little about them.
The map of France is pretty much as Wellington left it. The Napoleonic Empire was erased.
EU ahem!
The EU is run by the Germans.
As Thatcher foresaw, a reunited Germany was the biggest power in Europe again. Which changed the dynamic from the Big Three - France, UK, West Germany. To what we have today.
In fairness to the Krauts they do largely pay for the EU, especially since we left, so it's not surprising they exercise disproportionate influence.
But having seen the EU from the inside for several years professionally, I don't entirely agree that it's run by them - it's a sprawling and diverse place with no completely predominant influence. In agriculture, the Frog influence is unmistakable, the single market, where most of my work was, is designed for the benefit of the Krauts with their efficient manufacturers, and regional aid is such a mess is difficult to see who's in charge.
I didn't have much to do with the fourth element of the community, monetary affairs, as thank God we never joined that particular shitshow, so can't comment on that. But the day-to-day administration is run by the Commission, which has its own ethos, not really dominated by any country, though it has obvious influences still of Jacques Delors and the French Socialists that shaped it in the 80s and 90s.
All of which is to say that it's not really very coherent or beholden to any single nationality.
I believe the incubent Reform councillor had been jailed for 12 months after admitting behaving in a controlling and coercive way to his wife. It was once he had to step down the by election was called.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
And yet people obsess about Israel. Funny that.
Isn’t this a function of Israel being a functioning democracy? We hold it to higher standards - or at least I kind of do.
I am not surprised when dictatorships (whether notionally communist, monarchies or “illiberal democracies” - which to me is just despotism) treat their minorities abysmally. It is part of their operating model, and it is how they leaders stay at the top of the tree. I feel sorry for those around the world that have to live in such states.
I think we should be careful in how we interact with them - and if possible favour working wth democracies. But you can’t ignore them and you also can’t go round the world imposing democracy. We’ve tried that before with mixed results.
Turkey is a democracy and yet how many people demand a state for the Kurds compared to a state for the Palestinians?
Turkey isn’t thought of as a democracy by many Westerners.
While there’s some truth in there, there is a chunk of racism in there.
Kurdistan also is spread across four nations. The other three can hardly be seen as democracies either.
There are protests, from time to time, in Newcastle from Kurdistan separatists.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
And yet people obsess about Israel. Funny that.
Isn’t this a function of Israel being a functioning democracy? We hold it to higher standards - or at least I kind of do.
I am not surprised when dictatorships (whether notionally communist, monarchies or “illiberal democracies” - which to me is just despotism) treat their minorities abysmally. It is part of their operating model, and it is how they leaders stay at the top of the tree. I feel sorry for those around the world that have to live in such states.
I think we should be careful in how we interact with them - and if possible favour working wth democracies. But you can’t ignore them and you also can’t go round the world imposing democracy. We’ve tried that before with mixed results.
Turkey is a democracy and yet how many people demand a state for the Kurds compared to a state for the Palestinians?
Turkey isn’t thought of as a democracy by many Westerners.
While there’s some truth in there, there is a chunk of racism in there.
Kurdistan also is spread across four nations. The other three can hardly be seen as democracies either.
There are protests, from time to time, in Newcastle from Kurdistan separatists.
I believe the incubent Reform councillor had been jailed for 12 months after admitting behaving in a controlling and coercive way to his wife. It was once he had to step down the by election was called.
There is a lot of it going about in particular political circles according to legacy media.
Indeed, had Tory voters tactically voted Reform as much as Labour voters tactically voted Green in Cliftonville Reform would have held the seat.
Farage still isn't squeezing the Conservative vote as much as he needs to in seats the Tories don't now hold
Don't sound so disappointed. It's a good thing, isn't it?
I would vote Reform over Green, though on a forced choice between Tories and Green I suspect the Tories would have won Cliftonville unlike Reform. It was a Tory held seat until 2025 and on the header theme, Reform voters are tactically more likely to vote Tory polls show to beat Labour or the Greens than Tories are to tactically vote Reform. Indeed some Tories would even vote LD over Reform
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
And yet people obsess about Israel. Funny that.
Isn’t this a function of Israel being a functioning democracy? We hold it to higher standards - or at least I kind of do.
I am not surprised when dictatorships (whether notionally communist, monarchies or “illiberal democracies” - which to me is just despotism) treat their minorities abysmally. It is part of their operating model, and it is how they leaders stay at the top of the tree. I feel sorry for those around the world that have to live in such states.
I think we should be careful in how we interact with them - and if possible favour working wth democracies. But you can’t ignore them and you also can’t go round the world imposing democracy. We’ve tried that before with mixed results.
Turkey is a democracy and yet how many people demand a state for the Kurds compared to a state for the Palestinians?
Kurds have the right of return. Not so for Palestinians. Türkiye is secular. Israel uses theocracy in the same way as South Africa used to use colour. They'd like to be seen as Western but they are clearly mimicking the other theocracies in the region.
Are Israel committing war crimes? Almost certainly yes. Are the other actors also committing war crimes? Again, almost certainly yes.
But Israel gets criticised and Hamas and Hezbollah get excused and twas forever thus.
Islamism anti-semitism has swamped western media.
Israel is a nation state; Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
Are you saying that Neyenyahu's government should now be judged as a terrorist organisation ?
I’m saying they should be judged in the context of the wider middle east and not of an impossibly privileged western european liberal standard
Indeed. https://www.972mag.com/israelis-war-crimes-gaza-taboo/ ..Last week, Israeli opposition leader Yair Golan made international headlines when he declared in an interview on Israeli public radio that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not aim to expel a population.”..
Well he’s not wrong, is he? But his party is nowhere in the polls which demonstrates that proportion responses to violence are not politically viable.
It’s so easy to criticise from the safety of the UK but if we were all living under threat of rocket attacks from a terror organisation you can be certain that the jingoism would start and we’d elect a hardline government promising to respond hard.
This is true.
But at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy.
Funny, I seem to recall in 2000 when Israel accepted Clinton's peace proposals and Arafat rejected them that many in the West, especially on the Left, deplored Israel even then.
And elements have only become more antisemitic since then.
Israel could lay down its arms and many in the West would say or do nothing as its enemies slaughtered them.
So we should suspend all judgement of Israel because “many, especially on the Left, deplored Israel in 2000”.
No, but we should not mix up cause and effect.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
This is a non-sequitur to my original post.
No, it is not.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
So, you’re saying that opinion has turned against Israel as Israel has adopted more aggressive policies? Which is also what Gardenwalker is saying.
No, I am saying opinion was against Israel and then Israel adopted more aggressive policies.
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
But you also said that opinion now is more against Israel than it was. Why is that? Is that unrelated to the actions of the Israeli government under Netanyahu?
Yes.
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
So, people’s views of a country have nothing to do with what a country does. Rather, you are arguing that Muslims are just inherently hating of Jews?
Not exactly, but as already discussed the way Israel treats Palestinians is far better than the Chinese treat Uighurs . . . or for that matter, the way the Chinese treat Tibetans, or the way the Turks treat Kurds or the way practically any Arab country treated Jews or . . .
And yet people obsess about Israel. Funny that.
Isn’t this a function of Israel being a functioning democracy? We hold it to higher standards - or at least I kind of do.
I am not surprised when dictatorships (whether notionally communist, monarchies or “illiberal democracies” - which to me is just despotism) treat their minorities abysmally. It is part of their operating model, and it is how they leaders stay at the top of the tree. I feel sorry for those around the world that have to live in such states.
I think we should be careful in how we interact with them - and if possible favour working wth democracies. But you can’t ignore them and you also can’t go round the world imposing democracy. We’ve tried that before with mixed results.
Turkey is a democracy and yet how many people demand a state for the Kurds compared to a state for the Palestinians?
Turkey isn’t thought of as a democracy by many Westerners.
While there’s some truth in there, there is a chunk of racism in there.
Kurdistan also is spread across four nations. The other three can hardly be seen as democracies either.
There are protests, from time to time, in Newcastle from Kurdistan separatists.
There's also a small but important difference:
The Kurds in Turkey get the vote. The Palestinians in the West Bank do not, while the Israelis do.
I would also note that -as far as I know- the legal system in Turkey does not have the death penalty for Kurds, but not Turks.
I believe the incubent Reform councillor had been jailed for 12 months after admitting behaving in a controlling and coercive way to his wife. It was once he had to step down the by election was called.
There is a lot of it going about in particular political circles according to legacy media.
Indeed, had Tory voters tactically voted Reform as much as Labour voters tactically voted Green in Cliftonville Reform would have held the seat.
Farage still isn't squeezing the Conservative vote as much as he needs to in seats the Tories don't now hold
Don't sound so disappointed. It's a good thing, isn't it?
I would vote Reform over Green, though on a forced choice between Tories and Green I suspect the Tories would have won Cliftonville unlike Reform. It was a Tory held seat until 2025 and on the header theme, Reform voters are tactically more likely to vote Tory polls show to beat Labour or the Greens than Tories are to tactically vote Reform. Indeed some Tories would even vote LD over Reform
" Indeed some Tories would even vote LD over Reform"
There's still a small number of Tories with the good of the country at heart, then?
I believe the incubent Reform councillor had been jailed for 12 months after admitting behaving in a controlling and coercive way to his wife. It was once he had to step down the by election was called.
There is a lot of it going about in particular political circles according to legacy media.
Indeed, had Tory voters tactically voted Reform as much as Labour voters tactically voted Green in Cliftonville Reform would have held the seat.
Farage still isn't squeezing the Conservative vote as much as he needs to in seats the Tories don't now hold
Don't sound so disappointed. It's a good thing, isn't it?
I would vote Reform over Green, though on a forced choice between Tories and Green I suspect the Tories would have won Cliftonville unlike Reform. It was a Tory held seat until 2025 and on the header theme, Reform voters are tactically more likely to vote Tory polls show to beat Labour or the Greens than Tories are to tactically vote Reform. Indeed some Tories would even vote LD over Reform
In a local election I’d go Green over Reform and in a general election the other way.
“Israel will not remain silent in the face of those who attack us.
Spain has defamed our heroes, the soldiers of the IDF, the soldiers of the most moral army in the world.
Therefore, I have instructed today to remove Spain's representatives from the coordination center in Kiryat Gat, after Spain has chosen repeatedly to stand against Israel.
Those who attack the State of Israel instead of terrorist regimes will not be our partners regarding the future of the region.
I am not willing to tolerate this hypocrisy and hostility. I do not intend to allow any country to wage a diplomatic war against us without paying an immediate price.
Comments
Q: Do you still consider Trump ‘daddy’ after yesterday?
Mark Rutte: Well, on the ‘daddy’ issue—this is really a language problem.
In Dutch, you would say that the translation of ‘your father’ is ‘daddy.’ And I said, well, yes—sometimes a ‘daddy’ has to be angry.
So I was not calling him my daddy. Of course, the word ‘daddy’ also has a different connotation.
And now I have to live with it—is this the rest of my life… But I own it, and the president owns it as well.
He made a movie... so funny, this is why I like him so much.
https://x.com/clashreport/status/2042269515489165318
When it comes to Gaza and the Middle East this govt has been far less supporting of the Israeli regime than previous govts and has moderated its approach since coming to power.
When it comes to the reform of the planning laws promised, again a major Green issue, this has been watered down.
They have concerns which have been listened to. Whether it’s adequate is another matter.
I’m not surprised at all.
I’m not so sure of that.
The world is a much more fucked up place than it was in my young adulthood. Britain can’t be some smug peacenik, it’s has to work with the world as it is. Britain needs to treat Israel as it does China, a country to be wary of, but with which there is much to transact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Russian_presidential_election
I’d agree with your last sentence too.
Israel has, in better times, been a great innovator and these awful times won’t last forever.
For example, some of the opposition to the new mega-solar farms is down to
- flat, higher quality farming land for the projects (easier to implement)
- no local benefit
- removal of access to fields
So
- emphasis or incentives to use lower grade land,
- free ‘leccy for the locals
- defined paths through some fields/sites?
Rather than “Death To All NIMBYs”
It’s a mark of how biblically unpopular he is that we’re even talking about him losing.
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Israel needs to stand up for itself and defeat its own enemies, because nobody besides America will step in to intervene on its behalf.
That was true 20 years ago, it is doubly true today.
So they need to secure themselves by eliminating their enemies today.
Once the enemies are eliminated then peace can be secured.
I don't propose to find common interest with Iran either to be clear. It's the difference between finding common interest and necessary dealing with bad actors, with both Israel and Iran in the second category.
You originally claimed "at core, Western opinion is that Israel no longer has justice on its side. If Israel would stop rolling out apartheid like policy internally and stop settling the West Bank aggressively, then it would garner more sympathy."
Yet that is BS. Even 26 years ago, when Isrsel had halted settlements, engaged in the peace process and accepted Clinton's proposals, Israel was still hated by many and unsupported even then.
And since then the West has only become more Islamist and antisemitic, not less, with the Holocaust fading out of living memory.
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2042596711651008697
WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL RESET!!!
President DJT
And which of the Duke and Napoleon has more influence today over Europe's legal systems ?
Carthage got “rm -rf *” by the Romans. That version is so lost to history that we know very little about them.
The map of France is pretty much as Wellington left it. The Napoleonic Empire was erased.
https://x.com/EranTzidkiyahu/status/2042242586979561957
And I don't believe any other PM has popularised an item of clothing, either!
He was saying the inverse.
He was confusing cause with effect.
Salmon Wellington.
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-watch-hungary-election-like-pro/
https://x.com/israelipm/status/2042596981600596128?s=61
Bibi should do standup
‘ the soldiers of the IDF, the soldiers of the most moral army in the world.’
https://x.com/netanyahu/status/2042598136175099995?s=61
I gave 2 totally unrelated reasons, we have changed demographically, the ratio of Jews to Muslims is completely different to what it was. And the Holocaust has faded out of living memory.
Besides we were giving zero support even then, so less opinion does not change jack consequentially.
Starmer fans please explain.
There has to be a massive opportunity for Kemi here.
But note that the Italians aren't facing calls for reparations. Nasty thought, really, isn't it?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/how-the-internet-fringe-infiltrated-republican-politics
As Thatcher foresaw, a reunited Germany was the biggest power in Europe again. Which changed the dynamic from the Big Three - France, UK, West Germany. To what we have today.
But there have also been people who generally if not pro-Israeli certainly recognised the unique nature of its formation and the “challenges” of its neighbourhood. They knew that Israel had to act in certain ways to combat the threats it faced, even if they didn’t agree with how the Israeli government chose to go about it.
That was certainly how I tended to think about Israel - and I still do to a certain extent; I couldn’t imagine living in a country where rocket attacks were a daily occurrence. However, given recent behaviour it is getting harder to cut their government any slack. It seems that at every stage they have chosen to ratchet things up and make them worse. Seemingly in pursuit of permanent conflict.
I think there are a lot of people with similar views to mine who are increasingly seeing both sides as bad as each other - and perhaps even considering the Israel administration as the aggressor. Where that ends, who can say. But goodwill lost seldom returns.
And yet people obsess about Israel. Funny that.
I don’t buy that.
I think people are generally turning against Israel due to its actions.
Stuff like this.
Carpet bombing civilian homes in a town in South Lebanon.
https://x.com/sahouraxo/status/2042580599941025829?s=61
Is it a phobia to note that Jewish and Muslim voters have different views on this conflict to each other and always have done? Is it a phobia to note that changing demographics changes opinions?
How have views of Israel changed in countries that have not become more Muslim.?
And don't forget the second unrelated factor mentioned, the fading of the Holocaust from living memory.
Would be tricky to find a country where that has not happened.
Israel is surrounded by theocratic nations some of which are antagonistic to it and in response have adopted similar theocratic baggage. If only they adopted the democratic norms of their American client, they would recognise that equality under the law for all their citizens is the way forward.
https://x.com/ntarnopolsky/status/2042592631620845746?s=61
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxde5e4rngo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Kent_County_Council_election#Thanet
I am not surprised when dictatorships (whether notionally communist, monarchies or “illiberal democracies” - which to me is just despotism) treat their minorities abysmally. It is part of their operating model, and it is how the various leaders stay at the top of the tree. I feel sorry for those around the world that have to live in such states.
I think we should be careful in how we interact with them - and if possible favour working wth democracies. But you can’t ignore them and you also can’t go round the world imposing democracy. We’ve tried that before with mixed results.
That's not to say that they should "lay down their arms". But a state permanently seeking conflict with its neighbours is fundamentally risking its future, Rational Israeli leadership has always sought to separate most people in the region from the extremists - not to push them into extremist arms.
While there’s some truth in there, there is a chunk of racism in there.
Farage still isn't squeezing the Conservative vote as much as he needs to in seats the Tories don't now hold
If they lock Netanyahu up for corruption, hold a proper inquiry into the Yon Kippur attacks and jail those Israeli politicians secretly aiding Hamas for their own ends, plus prosecute soldiers and commanders for war crimes and offer to negotiate with a reconstituted Palestinian Authority then a lot of the rest will be quietly forgotten. The last doesn’t even require them to do anything as the one thing we can say with certainty is the Palestinians will bugger up any attempt at rapprochement, because they always do.
If they do what they did with Sharon over Lebanon and try to sweep the whole thing under the carpet that will be harder.
But having seen the EU from the inside for several years professionally, I don't entirely agree that it's run by them - it's a sprawling and diverse place with no completely predominant influence. In agriculture, the Frog influence is unmistakable, the single market, where most of my work was, is designed for the benefit of the Krauts with their efficient manufacturers, and regional aid is such a mess is difficult to see who's in charge.
I didn't have much to do with the fourth element of the community, monetary affairs, as thank God we never joined that particular shitshow, so can't comment on that. But the day-to-day administration is run by the Commission, which has its own ethos, not really dominated by any country, though it has obvious influences still of Jacques Delors and the French Socialists that shaped it in the 80s and 90s.
All of which is to say that it's not really very coherent or beholden to any single nationality.
There are protests, from time to time, in Newcastle from Kurdistan separatists.
BBC News - Israeli military drops charges against soldiers accused of abusing Palestinian detainee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2xrz71zm3o
The Kurds in Turkey get the vote.
The Palestinians in the West Bank do not, while the Israelis do.
I would also note that -as far as I know- the legal system in Turkey does not have the death penalty for Kurds, but not Turks.
There's still a small number of Tories with the good of the country at heart, then?
Peter Mandelson to be fined for urinating outside George Osborne home
Next election here is Lab v Reform I reckon.
I’m planning on not voting at the moment.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
“Israel will not remain silent in the face of those who attack us.
Spain has defamed our heroes, the soldiers of the IDF, the soldiers of the most moral army in the world.
Therefore, I have instructed today to remove Spain's representatives from the coordination center in Kiryat Gat, after Spain has chosen repeatedly to stand against Israel.
Those who attack the State of Israel instead of terrorist regimes will not be our partners regarding the future of the region.
I am not willing to tolerate this hypocrisy and hostility. I do not intend to allow any country to wage a diplomatic war against us without paying an immediate price.