Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:Sunak speaks for a grand total of 84 seconds and then scuttles away to get his orders.

Crackpot.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:Nope, don't buy that. If you believe in a cause enough to go and support it then why be afraid of being seen? How could someone be sacked for attending a lawful march (assuming they didn't break any laws on march).

You don't have to buy it, but that doesn't mean that some were doing so exactly for that reason.

How could someone be sacked? Why don't you go ask some of those already sacked etc for making any contrary remark etc that Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal etc etc? Also, are you suggesting that someone, say, who has a criminal past (but has served time etc) or might be associated with some sort of proscribed group might not want to cover up on the recent London march, even if, on that march itself, they do nothing illegal?

Are you suggesting (I think that's what's implied) that those wearing any sort of face covering were actual criminals or members/supporters of Hamas? A little absolutist, perhaps?

Can you provide some examples of people sacked for saying Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal? Ta.

Not from the UK marches, although possibly moreso in the US - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/mccarthyite-backlash-response-to-criticism-of-israel-alarms-rights-groups
And there was this guy - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-67128273

Obviously that's The Guardian and the BBC, so I'm not sure if you will believe either one.

Yeah, I was specifically looking for in the UK and relating to Israel's actions over the past month and a bit.

Miller appears to be a classic anti-Semite, a bit beyond simple criticism of Israel, so I can understand his University removing him.

navyblueshorts wrote:Israel could metaphorically disarm Iran, Hesbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc etc in the region quite simply. All they have to do is what they have already agreed at the UN that they would do - allow a Palestinian state and the right of return for those displaced in the 1940s, 50s etc. It's not that they can't do it. It's that they won't, and therein lies the problem. For that matter, Hamas et al could present Israel with a problem if they simply said "OK. We'll disarm, absolutely, and change our founding statement(s) re. the existence of the Israeli state if you agree to adhere to UN 181." Neither seem to have the brains, however, and/or it's all really about personal power on both sides, as I suspect it is..

If Israel did that it would not stop Hamas. Rightly or wrongly, it would be seen as a sign of retreat and encourage the likes of Hamas. 1300 years of Islamic hate for Jews will not be undone by Israel allowing a Palestinian state.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:Nope, don't buy that. If you believe in a cause enough to go and support it then why be afraid of being seen? How could someone be sacked for attending a lawful march (assuming they didn't break any laws on march).

You don't have to buy it, but that doesn't mean that some were doing so exactly for that reason.

How could someone be sacked? Why don't you go ask some of those already sacked etc for making any contrary remark etc that Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal etc etc? Also, are you suggesting that someone, say, who has a criminal past (but has served time etc) or might be associated with some sort of proscribed group might not want to cover up on the recent London march, even if, on that march itself, they do nothing illegal?

Are you suggesting (I think that's what's implied) that those wearing any sort of face covering were actual criminals or members/supporters of Hamas? A little absolutist, perhaps?

Can you provide some examples of people sacked for saying Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal? Ta.

Not from the UK marches, although possibly moreso in the US - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/mccarthyite-backlash-response-to-criticism-of-israel-alarms-rights-groups
And there was this guy - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-67128273

Obviously that's The Guardian and the BBC, so I'm not sure if you will believe either one.

Yeah, I was specifically looking for in the UK and relating to Israel's actions over the past month and a bit.

Miller appears to be a classic anti-Semite, a bit beyond simple criticism of Israel, so I can understand his University removing him.

Yeah, I don't blame them.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:Nope, don't buy that. If you believe in a cause enough to go and support it then why be afraid of being seen? How could someone be sacked for attending a lawful march (assuming they didn't break any laws on march).

You don't have to buy it, but that doesn't mean that some were doing so exactly for that reason.

How could someone be sacked? Why don't you go ask some of those already sacked etc for making any contrary remark etc that Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal etc etc? Also, are you suggesting that someone, say, who has a criminal past (but has served time etc) or might be associated with some sort of proscribed group might not want to cover up on the recent London march, even if, on that march itself, they do nothing illegal?

Are you suggesting (I think that's what's implied) that those wearing any sort of face covering were actual criminals or members/supporters of Hamas? A little absolutist, perhaps?

Can you provide some examples of people sacked for saying Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal? Ta.

Sure thing. I'm not generally an Owen Jones fan, and these aren't all UK: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/31/gaza-innocent-palestinians-silenced-sacked-free-speech
Or how about this Canadian example: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/canadian-journalist-fired-over-pro-palestine-posts-speaks-out/3047212#
Steve Bell, Guardian cartoonist is another. I'm sure you can find more if you look hard enough.

Re. genocidal language/treatment, it's long been an issue that Israeli politicians have had a problem re. the Palestinians in this area. I'm surprised you can't find any of the myriad examples. I'll help:

For background, you could start here: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/Background%20on%20the%20term%20genocide%20in%20Israel%20Palestine%20Context.pdf
Or here: https://www.dawn.com/news/1786922
You could try reading such as this: https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

Re. language in the current situation, I'll let Chris McGreal help you out: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Israel could metaphorically disarm Iran, Hesbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc etc in the region quite simply. All they have to do is what they have already agreed at the UN that they would do - allow a Palestinian state and the right of return for those displaced in the 1940s, 50s etc. It's not that they can't do it. It's that they won't, and therein lies the problem. For that matter, Hamas et al could present Israel with a problem if they simply said "OK. We'll disarm, absolutely, and change our founding statement(s) re. the existence of the Israeli state if you agree to adhere to UN 181." Neither seem to have the brains, however, and/or it's all really about personal power on both sides, as I suspect it is..

If Israel did that it would not stop Hamas. Rightly or wrongly, it would be seen as a sign of retreat and encourage the likes of Hamas. 1300 years of Islamic hate for Jews will not be undone by Israel allowing a Palestinian state.

Says you; the world's expert on terrorism and how to deal with it. So, the answer, in absence of anyone actually have the cojones to try it honestly, is to continue a cycle of violence and murder? Superb. It suits Israel and the US to maintain the status quo, all the while wringing their hands about how terrible this unfortunate slaughter is.

1300 years? I think you'll find that, in the main, when the early Jewish settlers returned to Palestine in the early 1900s, they were generally allowed to live happily beside the Palestinian farmers/villagers on whose land they often put down roots. Many Palestinian arabs and Jews worked happily side-by-side pre-1940s in Palestine. What a pity that was ruined by....hmm...who was it now? Ah yes, the nascent and fledgling Israeli state. Facts can be awkward sometimes.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:Nope, don't buy that. If you believe in a cause enough to go and support it then why be afraid of being seen? How could someone be sacked for attending a lawful march (assuming they didn't break any laws on march).

You don't have to buy it, but that doesn't mean that some were doing so exactly for that reason.

How could someone be sacked? Why don't you go ask some of those already sacked etc for making any contrary remark etc that Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal etc etc? Also, are you suggesting that someone, say, who has a criminal past (but has served time etc) or might be associated with some sort of proscribed group might not want to cover up on the recent London march, even if, on that march itself, they do nothing illegal?

Are you suggesting (I think that's what's implied) that those wearing any sort of face covering were actual criminals or members/supporters of Hamas? A little absolutist, perhaps?

Can you provide some examples of people sacked for saying Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal? Ta.

Sure thing. I'm not generally an Owen Jones fan, and these aren't all UK: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/31/gaza-innocent-palestinians-silenced-sacked-free-speech
Or how about this Canadian example: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/canadian-journalist-fired-over-pro-palestine-posts-speaks-out/3047212#
Steve Bell, Guardian cartoonist is another. I'm sure you can find more if you look hard enough.

Re. genocidal language/treatment, it's long been an issue that Israeli politicians have had a problem re. the Palestinians in this area. I'm surprised you can't find any of the myriad examples. I'll help:

For background, you could start here: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/Background%20on%20the%20term%20genocide%20in%20Israel%20Palestine%20Context.pdf
Or here: https://www.dawn.com/news/1786922
You could try reading such as this: https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

Re. language in the current situation, I'll let Chris McGreal help you out: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal

Thank you. Steve Bell was of course removed for an anti-Semitic cartoon, after a previous history of anti-Semitism, a bit beyond just criticising Israel's actions.

The Canadian journalist appears to have been fired because of a conflation of her personal social media accounts to her place of work.

Eisen appears to have been fired because of numerous violations of detrimental social media behaviour, and this was one strike too many.

There doesn't appear to be much here that would necessitate wearing face coverings for fear of dismissal. Practically everybody in the UK who has criticised Israel's actions have not been fired from their job and do not face a realistic chance of being sacked in the near-future. I think that's fair to say.

Historically, Muslims and Jews lived peacefully side-by-side when the Muslims ruled Spain for 700 years until around 1500. I'm not sure how that equates to 1300 years of hatred. I do hope Duty doesn't have an agenda with such statements.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Israel could metaphorically disarm Iran, Hesbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc etc in the region quite simply. All they have to do is what they have already agreed at the UN that they would do - allow a Palestinian state and the right of return for those displaced in the 1940s, 50s etc. It's not that they can't do it. It's that they won't, and therein lies the problem. For that matter, Hamas et al could present Israel with a problem if they simply said "OK. We'll disarm, absolutely, and change our founding statement(s) re. the existence of the Israeli state if you agree to adhere to UN 181." Neither seem to have the brains, however, and/or it's all really about personal power on both sides, as I suspect it is..

If Israel did that it would not stop Hamas. Rightly or wrongly, it would be seen as a sign of retreat and encourage the likes of Hamas. 1300 years of Islamic hate for Jews will not be undone by Israel allowing a Palestinian state.

Says you; the world's expert on terrorism and how to deal with it. So, the answer, in absence of anyone actually have the cojones to try it honestly, is to continue a cycle of violence and murder? Superb. It suits Israel and the US to maintain the status quo, all the while wringing their hands about how terrible this unfortunate slaughter is.

1300 years? I think you'll find that, in the main, when the early Jewish settlers returned to Palestine in the early 1900s, they were generally allowed to live happily beside the Palestinian farmers/villagers on whose land they often put down roots. Many Palestinian arabs and Jews worked happily side-by-side pre-1940s in Palestine. What a pity that was ruined by....hmm...who was it now? Ah yes, the nascent and fledgling Israeli state. Facts can be awkward sometimes.

What's the need for this petulance? You've sounded off on Israel-Hamas (the actual conflict) more than anyone else, and I don't think you're an expert either. Just someone giving their honest opinion, as I am.

I think you'll also find that you're incorrect about your 'facts'. There was a Jewish population in Palestine in the early 1900s, that is correct, but the increasing Jewish population led to the Arab revolt in the 1930s where, in 1936:

One particular target of the rebels was the Mosul–Haifa oil pipeline of the Iraq Petroleum Company constructed only a few years earlier to Haifa from a point on the Jordan River south of Lake Tiberias.[80] This was repeatedly bombed at various points along its length. Other attacks were on railways (including trains) and on civilian targets such as Jewish settlements, secluded Jewish neighbourhoods in the mixed cities, and Jews, both individually and in groups. During the summer of that year, thousands of Jewish-farmed acres and orchards were destroyed, Jewish civilians were attacked and murdered, and some Jewish communities, such as those in Beisan and Acre, fled to safer areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

This was, of course, one of the reasons for the creation of the Israeli state, which I don't believe ruined this pleasant utopia of the pre 1940s.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Historically, Muslims and Jews lived peacefully side-by-side when the Muslims ruled Spain for 700 years until around 1500. I'm not sure how that equates to 1300 years of hatred. I do hope Duty doesn't have an agenda with such statements.

The idea of a pleasant utopia where Jews and Muslims lived alongside one another in Spain is generally overstated. Jews were permitted fewer rights, suffered persecution and there were incidents such as the massacre in Granada, which I don't think counts as living peacefully side-by-side.

The Islamic religion has continually been hostile to Jews, and Islamic populations in Europe are generally more anti-Semitic than the average person. This isn't an agenda, just a summation of fact.

There were also 2 massacres of Jews by Christians as well, but over the course of 700 years in the Middle Ages that's a fairly small amount compared to what was going on at the time.
I would have thought that hatred and hostility would lead to oppression, which was not the case.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There were also 2 massacres of Jews by Christians as well, but over the course of 700 years in the Middle Ages that's a fairly small amount compared to what was going on at the time.
I would have thought that hatred and hostility would lead to oppression, which was not the case.

Christanity has also been hostile to the Jewish religion through history, of course it has.

If you're referring to Jews in Spain, they were oppressed by Islamic rule.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Israel could metaphorically disarm Iran, Hesbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc etc in the region quite simply. All they have to do is what they have already agreed at the UN that they would do - allow a Palestinian state and the right of return for those displaced in the 1940s, 50s etc. It's not that they can't do it. It's that they won't, and therein lies the problem. For that matter, Hamas et al could present Israel with a problem if they simply said "OK. We'll disarm, absolutely, and change our founding statement(s) re. the existence of the Israeli state if you agree to adhere to UN 181." Neither seem to have the brains, however, and/or it's all really about personal power on both sides, as I suspect it is..

If Israel did that it would not stop Hamas. Rightly or wrongly, it would be seen as a sign of retreat and encourage the likes of Hamas. 1300 years of Islamic hate for Jews will not be undone by Israel allowing a Palestinian state.

Says you; the world's expert on terrorism and how to deal with it. So, the answer, in absence of anyone actually have the cojones to try it honestly, is to continue a cycle of violence and murder? Superb. It suits Israel and the US to maintain the status quo, all the while wringing their hands about how terrible this unfortunate slaughter is.

1300 years? I think you'll find that, in the main, when the early Jewish settlers returned to Palestine in the early 1900s, they were generally allowed to live happily beside the Palestinian farmers/villagers on whose land they often put down roots. Many Palestinian arabs and Jews worked happily side-by-side pre-1940s in Palestine. What a pity that was ruined by....hmm...who was it now? Ah yes, the nascent and fledgling Israeli state. Facts can be awkward sometimes.

What's the need for this petulance? You've sounded off on Israel-Hamas (the actual conflict) more than anyone else, and I don't think you're an expert either. Just someone giving their honest opinion, as I am.

I think you'll also find that you're incorrect about your 'facts'. There was a Jewish population in Palestine in the early 1900s, that is correct, but the increasing Jewish population led to the Arab revolt in the 1930s where, in 1936:

One particular target of the rebels was the Mosul–Haifa oil pipeline of the Iraq Petroleum Company constructed only a few years earlier to Haifa from a point on the Jordan River south of Lake Tiberias.[80] This was repeatedly bombed at various points along its length. Other attacks were on railways (including trains) and on civilian targets such as Jewish settlements, secluded Jewish neighbourhoods in the mixed cities, and Jews, both individually and in groups. During the summer of that year, thousands of Jewish-farmed acres and orchards were destroyed, Jewish civilians were attacked and murdered, and some Jewish communities, such as those in Beisan and Acre, fled to safer areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

This was, of course, one of the reasons for the creation of the Israeli state, which I don't believe ruined this pleasant utopia of the pre 1940s.

I have sounded off, yes. Then again, I appear to have read my recent history on this conflict overall.

Oh no, you aren't going to get away with that sort of out-of-context quote. You're correct re. isolated incidents, but then Hertzl, Ben-Gurion etc (and those before him) no doubt had their influences on what led to this sort of revolt, and that incident you refer to appears to have been part of the specific Arab revolt against British administration of Mandatory Palestine, as I'm sure you really know. You'll also be aware of Jewish immigrants buying up land from absentee landlords and then evicting the Palestinians who'd farmed it for ages, or the JNF acquiring land leading to eviction of Palestinian farmers. This uprising was not specifically aimed at the Jews; the cleansing of Palestine via Plan Dalet was exactly aimed at the local Palestinians.

Look, I can quote from the same article, too (my highlighting):

"In November 1937, the Irgun formally rejected the policy of Havlagah and embarked on a series of indiscriminate attacks against Arab civilians as a form of what the group called "active defense" against Arab attacks on Jewish civilians."

Or, how about:

"From October 1937 the Irgun instituted a wave of bombings against Arab crowds and buses. For the first time in the conflict massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab public places, killing and maiming dozens."

Or even (on final casualties):

"...the uprising continued for over three years. By the time it concluded in September 1939, more than 5,000 Arabs, over 300 Jews, and 262 Britons had been killed and at least 15,000 Arabs were wounded."

Hmm. Seems to be a disproportionate number of Arab deaths. I wonder why that might be. Certainly, there were those who weren't saints on both sides, but please, you'll need to do a bit better than this.

We can split hairs as much as we like. However, unless the Palestinians are honourably treated, as they should have been decades ago, this will never stop. This isn't an invading force being challenged - this a people fighting for their homeland. I think you'll agree, that in many cases, that's about as fierce as it's going to get. You already have thousands and thousands of descendants of the original displaced Palestinians, all knowing about the Nakba etc, all knowing that "the West" doesn't give a 4X. What do they lose by causing chaos?

Quite ironic you quote this uprising, really. Almost as if it could be compared to the anti-immigrant feelings that led to Brexit. I suppose we should be thankful we're so civilised.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There were also 2 massacres of Jews by Christians as well, but over the course of 700 years in the Middle Ages that's a fairly small amount compared to what was going on at the time.
I would have thought that hatred and hostility would lead to oppression, which was not the case.

Oh, come on. Surely the Convention on Human rights etc was in place back then? No? Nothing such as The Inquisition? No r@pe, pillage or slavery back then? Methinks Duty has extrapolated a bit far back into antiquity in desperate attempt to support a position.

Those in positions of power/influence in the UN, America, Britain etc knew exactly what had just happened in the Polish death camps etc, but still they stood by and pretty much ignored the nascent Israeli state's behaviour in the late 40s, and onwards to the present day. Maybe back then, they were all feeling a little guilty and desensitised by WWII, which is understandable I think. However, that's not an excuse now.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:Nope, don't buy that. If you believe in a cause enough to go and support it then why be afraid of being seen? How could someone be sacked for attending a lawful march (assuming they didn't break any laws on march).

You don't have to buy it, but that doesn't mean that some were doing so exactly for that reason.

How could someone be sacked? Why don't you go ask some of those already sacked etc for making any contrary remark etc that Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal etc etc? Also, are you suggesting that someone, say, who has a criminal past (but has served time etc) or might be associated with some sort of proscribed group might not want to cover up on the recent London march, even if, on that march itself, they do nothing illegal?

Are you suggesting (I think that's what's implied) that those wearing any sort of face covering were actual criminals or members/supporters of Hamas? A little absolutist, perhaps?

Can you provide some examples of people sacked for saying Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal? Ta.

Sure thing. I'm not generally an Owen Jones fan, and these aren't all UK: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/31/gaza-innocent-palestinians-silenced-sacked-free-speech
Or how about this Canadian example: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/canadian-journalist-fired-over-pro-palestine-posts-speaks-out/3047212#
Steve Bell, Guardian cartoonist is another. I'm sure you can find more if you look hard enough.

Re. genocidal language/treatment, it's long been an issue that Israeli politicians have had a problem re. the Palestinians in this area. I'm surprised you can't find any of the myriad examples. I'll help:

For background, you could start here: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/Background%20on%20the%20term%20genocide%20in%20Israel%20Palestine%20Context.pdf
Or here: https://www.dawn.com/news/1786922
You could try reading such as this: https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

Re. language in the current situation, I'll let Chris McGreal help you out: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal

Thank you. Steve Bell was of course removed for an anti-Semitic cartoon, after a previous history of anti-Semitism, a bit beyond just criticising Israel's actions.

The Canadian journalist appears to have been fired because of a conflation of her personal social media accounts to her place of work.

Eisen appears to have been fired because of numerous violations of detrimental social media behaviour, and this was one strike too many.

There doesn't appear to be much here that would necessitate wearing face coverings for fear of dismissal. Practically everybody in the UK who has criticised Israel's actions have not been fired from their job and do not face a realistic chance of being sacked in the near-future. I think that's fair to say.

Almost missed this. I'm sure Steve Bell was delighted to have someone tell him what he meant, and to be sacked as a result. How nice.

No comment on the genocidal language/behaviour before and currently that you asked me to source for you? Oh, Duty. I am disappointed in you...

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:There were also 2 massacres of Jews by Christians as well, but over the course of 700 years in the Middle Ages that's a fairly small amount compared to what was going on at the time.
I would have thought that hatred and hostility would lead to oppression, which was not the case.

Christanity has also been hostile to the Jewish religion through history, of course it has.

If you're referring to Jews in Spain, they were oppressed by Islamic rule.

And yet despite this "oppression" many became wealthy and influential and held high positions in science, medicine etc. In fact, a few hundred years, no short period of time, are referred as the Golden Age of Jews in Spain.
https://www.jewishhistory.org/golden-age-in-spain/
"...marked by Jews living in a liberal, tolerant society. Jews not only moved freely but felt themselves part of the society."

https://jewishheritagealliance.com/jewish-heritage-the-golden-age/

Separately, I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury called on the government "to design an asylum system fit for the growing pressures of the coming century - one that is based on fairness, compassion and the God-given dignity of every human being"

The man is clearly a Communist!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Separately, I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury called on the government "to design an asylum system fit for the growing pressures of the coming century - one that is based on fairness, compassion and the God-given dignity of every human being"

The man is clearly a Communist!

Clearly. Deluded, certainly. I was with him until the last (unsurprising, given his role!) bit about "God-given". His point is good though, even if I can't see our superb politicians coming up with anything to match that description.

Hmm. Israeli President Herzog last month, as the IDF was in the early phases of the massive overkill operation in Gaza, amid concerns for civilian casualties:

"It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday. “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat."

Leaving aside the disingenuous reference to any coup d'etat by Hamas, any comment on the language, Duty? No? Not even a little bit dehumanising?

Incidentally, could this possibly be the same Isaac Herzog whom in 2016 said of Yair Golan (who's been in the news a bit recently), after the latter (at the time second in command of the IDF) had made a controversial speech talking about seeing concerning trends in modern Israeli society/politics (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/05/israeli-military-chief-yair-golan-nazi-germany-comparison) that he, Golan, was what "morality and responsibility sound like" ?

Pathetic. What is it about politicians and their principles/morals/honesty?

At least, as long as those such as Golan exist, there's a chance this might all eventually come to a sensible, just, end. Don't hold your breath, though.

navyblueshorts wrote:Hmm. Israeli President Herzog last month, as the IDF was in the early phases of the massive overkill operation in Gaza, amid concerns for civilian casualties:

"It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday. “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat."

Leaving aside the disingenuous reference to any coup d'etat by Hamas, any comment on the language, Duty? No? Not even a little bit dehumanising?

Incidentally, could this possibly be the same Isaac Herzog whom in 2016 said of Yair Golan (who's been in the news a bit recently), after the latter (at the time second in command of the IDF) had made a controversial speech talking about seeing concerning trends in modern Israeli society/politics (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/05/israeli-military-chief-yair-golan-nazi-germany-comparison) that he, Golan, was what "morality and responsibility sound like" ?

Pathetic. What is it about politicians and their principles/morals/honesty?

At least, as long as those such as Golan exist, there's a chance this might all eventually come to a sensible, just, end. Don't hold your breath, though.

Yeah, seems quite disproportionate the language used. You seem to think I'm rabidly pro-Israel, but this really isn't the case.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Separately, I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury called on the government "to design an asylum system fit for the growing pressures of the coming century - one that is based on fairness, compassion and the God-given dignity of every human being"

The man is clearly a Communist!

Very easy to say things like that when he's not actually accountable. We all want a fair and compassionate asylum system, well the vast majority, but running one when the country is stretched for resources and finance is another matter.

The rate of asylum refusals is, interestingly, lower under the Tories than it was for much of New Labour's governance.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:There were also 2 massacres of Jews by Christians as well, but over the course of 700 years in the Middle Ages that's a fairly small amount compared to what was going on at the time.
I would have thought that hatred and hostility would lead to oppression, which was not the case.

Christanity has also been hostile to the Jewish religion through history, of course it has.

If you're referring to Jews in Spain, they were oppressed by Islamic rule.

And yet despite this "oppression" many became wealthy and influential and held high positions in science, medicine etc. In fact, a few hundred years, no short period of time, are referred as the Golden Age of Jews in Spain.
https://www.jewishhistory.org/golden-age-in-spain/
"...marked by Jews living in a liberal, tolerant society. Jews not only moved freely but felt themselves part of the society."

https://jewishheritagealliance.com/jewish-heritage-the-golden-age/

Jews were forced to pay the Muslim rulers of al-Andalus the jizya, a yearly poll tax intended not only as the price of their being ahlu dhimma (people of “protection” or simply al dhimma or dhimmis), but also as a sign of their humiliation before Islam.11 As dhimmis, they were under the supervision and “protection” of an Islamic functionary from the office of the Kitabatudh-dhimam, or “Office of Protection.”12 Jews were allowed to practice their religion and rule themselves according to their religious laws, but only within their neighborhoods and always under rules created and enforced by the hegemonic Muslim culture.

In order to prevent the expansion of the Jewish community, building new synagogues was seldom permitted. Jewish buildings were required to be lower than Muslim buildings. Jews were not allowed to carry weapons or ride horses, and they had to show deference to Muslims. They could not give evidence in court against a Muslim. No Muslim life could be taken for killing a Jew, but a Jewish life could be taken for killing a Muslim. Jews were not allowed to criticize Islam, Muhammad, or the Quran. They could not proselytize. They were not allowed to have sexual relations with or marry a Muslim woman under penalty of death, although a Muslim man could marry a Jewish woman and their children had to be brought up as Muslims. Jews could not dress as Muslim chiefs, scholars, or nobility. They could not dress in such an ostentatious manner as to offend
poorer Muslims. They could not hold Muslims as slaves or servants, but Muslims could hold Jews as slaves or servants.

They had to wear a distinctive sign on their clothes, usually a yellow band, badge, or cap, so that they could not “pass” as Muslims (standard practice towards Jews in the Middle East, eventually imitated by Christians—an origin often overlooked by scholarship on Jewish-Christian relations: see my note 12). Eating implements used by Jews could not be used by Muslims because they were polluted.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1886&context=ccr

I'd say this is oppression.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Hmm. Israeli President Herzog last month, as the IDF was in the early phases of the massive overkill operation in Gaza, amid concerns for civilian casualties:

"It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday. “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat."

Leaving aside the disingenuous reference to any coup d'etat by Hamas, any comment on the language, Duty? No? Not even a little bit dehumanising?

Incidentally, could this possibly be the same Isaac Herzog whom in 2016 said of Yair Golan (who's been in the news a bit recently), after the latter (at the time second in command of the IDF) had made a controversial speech talking about seeing concerning trends in modern Israeli society/politics (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/05/israeli-military-chief-yair-golan-nazi-germany-comparison) that he, Golan, was what "morality and responsibility sound like" ?

Pathetic. What is it about politicians and their principles/morals/honesty?

At least, as long as those such as Golan exist, there's a chance this might all eventually come to a sensible, just, end. Don't hold your breath, though.

Yeah, seems quite disproportionate the language used. You seem to think I'm rabidly pro-Israel, but this really isn't the case.

Ta for acknowledging. You asked me for examples of, arguably, genocidal language etc, so happy to help you out there with this example, and some in a previous post .

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:Nope, don't buy that. If you believe in a cause enough to go and support it then why be afraid of being seen? How could someone be sacked for attending a lawful march (assuming they didn't break any laws on march).

You don't have to buy it, but that doesn't mean that some were doing so exactly for that reason.

How could someone be sacked? Why don't you go ask some of those already sacked etc for making any contrary remark etc that Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal etc etc? Also, are you suggesting that someone, say, who has a criminal past (but has served time etc) or might be associated with some sort of proscribed group might not want to cover up on the recent London march, even if, on that march itself, they do nothing illegal?

Are you suggesting (I think that's what's implied) that those wearing any sort of face covering were actual criminals or members/supporters of Hamas? A little absolutist, perhaps?

Can you provide some examples of people sacked for saying Israel's actions are criminal/genocidal? Ta.

Sure thing. I'm not generally an Owen Jones fan, and these aren't all UK: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/31/gaza-innocent-palestinians-silenced-sacked-free-speech
Or how about this Canadian example: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/canadian-journalist-fired-over-pro-palestine-posts-speaks-out/3047212#
Steve Bell, Guardian cartoonist is another. I'm sure you can find more if you look hard enough.

Re. genocidal language/treatment, it's long been an issue that Israeli politicians have had a problem re. the Palestinians in this area. I'm surprised you can't find any of the myriad examples. I'll help:

For background, you could start here: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/Background%20on%20the%20term%20genocide%20in%20Israel%20Palestine%20Context.pdf
Or here: https://www.dawn.com/news/1786922
You could try reading such as this: https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

Re. language in the current situation, I'll let Chris McGreal help you out: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal

Thank you. Steve Bell was of course removed for an anti-Semitic cartoon, after a previous history of anti-Semitism, a bit beyond just criticising Israel's actions.

The Canadian journalist appears to have been fired because of a conflation of her personal social media accounts to her place of work.

Eisen appears to have been fired because of numerous violations of detrimental social media behaviour, and this was one strike too many.

There doesn't appear to be much here that would necessitate wearing face coverings for fear of dismissal. Practically everybody in the UK who has criticised Israel's actions have not been fired from their job and do not face a realistic chance of being sacked in the near-future. I think that's fair to say.

Almost missed this. I'm sure Steve Bell was delighted to have someone tell him what he meant, and to be sacked as a result. How nice.

No comment on the genocidal language/behaviour before and currently that you asked me to source for you? Oh, Duty. I am disappointed in you...

Steve Bell knows exactly what he meant, as his history attests. He may not be forthcoming with it, but it was anti-Semitic.

Regardless, the original point was about people wearing face coverings because, apparently, if you criticise Israel in the UK you run the gauntlet of being sacked from your job. This does not appear to be true. I'm not hearing of a mass wave of sackings that has happened as a result of recent events.

On the last sentence, this may just be a simple miscommunication from myself. I was only asking for evidence of people who had been sacked for saying Israel was criminal and/or genocidal. I wasn't asking for a justification of referring to Israel as genocidal. Though I do appreciate it.

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:There were also 2 massacres of Jews by Christians as well, but over the course of 700 years in the Middle Ages that's a fairly small amount compared to what was going on at the time.
I would have thought that hatred and hostility would lead to oppression, which was not the case.

Oh, come on. Surely the Convention on Human rights etc was in place back then? No? Nothing such as The Inquisition? No r@pe, pillage or slavery back then? Methinks Duty has extrapolated a bit far back into antiquity in desperate attempt to support a position.

Those in positions of power/influence in the UN, America, Britain etc knew exactly what had just happened in the Polish death camps etc, but still they stood by and pretty much ignored the nascent Israeli state's behaviour in the late 40s, and onwards to the present day. Maybe back then, they were all feeling a little guilty and desensitised by WWII, which is understandable I think. However, that's not an excuse now.

Julius brought up Spain, not myself, as some apparent golden age utopia of Islam acting benevolently towards the Jewish faith. A time where they lived side-by-side in perfect harmony. Although the reality was, as it so often was, oppression, segregation, second-class status and murder of the Jewish citizenry.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Israel could metaphorically disarm Iran, Hesbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc etc in the region quite simply. All they have to do is what they have already agreed at the UN that they would do - allow a Palestinian state and the right of return for those displaced in the 1940s, 50s etc. It's not that they can't do it. It's that they won't, and therein lies the problem. For that matter, Hamas et al could present Israel with a problem if they simply said "OK. We'll disarm, absolutely, and change our founding statement(s) re. the existence of the Israeli state if you agree to adhere to UN 181." Neither seem to have the brains, however, and/or it's all really about personal power on both sides, as I suspect it is..

If Israel did that it would not stop Hamas. Rightly or wrongly, it would be seen as a sign of retreat and encourage the likes of Hamas. 1300 years of Islamic hate for Jews will not be undone by Israel allowing a Palestinian state.

Says you; the world's expert on terrorism and how to deal with it. So, the answer, in absence of anyone actually have the cojones to try it honestly, is to continue a cycle of violence and murder? Superb. It suits Israel and the US to maintain the status quo, all the while wringing their hands about how terrible this unfortunate slaughter is.

1300 years? I think you'll find that, in the main, when the early Jewish settlers returned to Palestine in the early 1900s, they were generally allowed to live happily beside the Palestinian farmers/villagers on whose land they often put down roots. Many Palestinian arabs and Jews worked happily side-by-side pre-1940s in Palestine. What a pity that was ruined by....hmm...who was it now? Ah yes, the nascent and fledgling Israeli state. Facts can be awkward sometimes.

What's the need for this petulance? You've sounded off on Israel-Hamas (the actual conflict) more than anyone else, and I don't think you're an expert either. Just someone giving their honest opinion, as I am.

I think you'll also find that you're incorrect about your 'facts'. There was a Jewish population in Palestine in the early 1900s, that is correct, but the increasing Jewish population led to the Arab revolt in the 1930s where, in 1936:

One particular target of the rebels was the Mosul–Haifa oil pipeline of the Iraq Petroleum Company constructed only a few years earlier to Haifa from a point on the Jordan River south of Lake Tiberias.[80] This was repeatedly bombed at various points along its length. Other attacks were on railways (including trains) and on civilian targets such as Jewish settlements, secluded Jewish neighbourhoods in the mixed cities, and Jews, both individually and in groups. During the summer of that year, thousands of Jewish-farmed acres and orchards were destroyed, Jewish civilians were attacked and murdered, and some Jewish communities, such as those in Beisan and Acre, fled to safer areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

This was, of course, one of the reasons for the creation of the Israeli state, which I don't believe ruined this pleasant utopia of the pre 1940s.

I have sounded off, yes. Then again, I appear to have read my recent history on this conflict overall.

Oh no, you aren't going to get away with that sort of out-of-context quote. You're correct re. isolated incidents, but then Hertzl, Ben-Gurion etc (and those before him) no doubt had their influences on what led to this sort of revolt, and that incident you refer to appears to have been part of the specific Arab revolt against British administration of Mandatory Palestine, as I'm sure you really know. You'll also be aware of Jewish immigrants buying up land from absentee landlords and then evicting the Palestinians who'd farmed it for ages, or the JNF acquiring land leading to eviction of Palestinian farmers. This uprising was not specifically aimed at the Jews; the cleansing of Palestine via Plan Dalet was exactly aimed at the local Palestinians.

Look, I can quote from the same article, too (my highlighting):

"In November 1937, the Irgun formally rejected the policy of Havlagah and embarked on a series of indiscriminate attacks against Arab civilians as a form of what the group called "active defense" against Arab attacks on Jewish civilians."

Or, how about:

"From October 1937 the Irgun instituted a wave of bombings against Arab crowds and buses. For the first time in the conflict massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab public places, killing and maiming dozens."

Or even (on final casualties):

"...the uprising continued for over three years. By the time it concluded in September 1939, more than 5,000 Arabs, over 300 Jews, and 262 Britons had been killed and at least 15,000 Arabs were wounded."

Hmm. Seems to be a disproportionate number of Arab deaths. I wonder why that might be. Certainly, there were those who weren't saints on both sides, but please, you'll need to do a bit better than this.

We can split hairs as much as we like. However, unless the Palestinians are honourably treated, as they should have been decades ago, this will never stop. This isn't an invading force being challenged - this a people fighting for their homeland. I think you'll agree, that in many cases, that's about as fierce as it's going to get. You already have thousands and thousands of descendants of the original displaced Palestinians, all knowing about the Nakba etc, all knowing that "the West" doesn't give a 4X. What do they lose by causing chaos?

Quite ironic you quote this uprising, really. Almost as if it could be compared to the anti-immigrant feelings that led to Brexit. I suppose we should be thankful we're so civilised.

The  point was there was violence before the creation of the state of Israel. It doesn't appear to be the case that Arabs and Jews worked alongside each other, then the awful state of Israel came along and ruined everything. There was fighting beforehand. Israel was supposed to give the Jews a sanctuary away from the Muslims, in much the same way that the partition of India into India and Pakistan (East and West at the time) tried to keep the Hindus and Muslims apart.

Even if the Palestinians were honourably treated, Israel would still be subject to attack. Even if Israel now ceased bombing Palestine, Hamas would come for them on another day, after rebuilding their strength. Islam is not tolerant of Judaism and the Jewish people, and Israel can make as many concessions as it likes, but that fundamental fact will not change (until Islam drastically reforms, which is very unlikely).

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:There were also 2 massacres of Jews by Christians as well, but over the course of 700 years in the Middle Ages that's a fairly small amount compared to what was going on at the time.
I would have thought that hatred and hostility would lead to oppression, which was not the case.

Oh, come on. Surely the Convention on Human rights etc was in place back then? No? Nothing such as The Inquisition? No r@pe, pillage or slavery back then? Methinks Duty has extrapolated a bit far back into antiquity in desperate attempt to support a position.

Those in positions of power/influence in the UN, America, Britain etc knew exactly what had just happened in the Polish death camps etc, but still they stood by and pretty much ignored the nascent Israeli state's behaviour in the late 40s, and onwards to the present day. Maybe back then, they were all feeling a little guilty and desensitised by WWII, which is understandable I think. However, that's not an excuse now.

Julius brought up Spain, not myself, as some apparent golden age utopia of Islam acting benevolently towards the Jewish faith. A time where they lived side-by-side in perfect harmony. Although the reality was, as it so often was, oppression, segregation, second-class status and murder of the Jewish citizenry.

At no point did I claim it was a utopia or describe it as perfect, as far as I can recall. The term 'Golden Age' is not my invention.
I'm aware of critiques and isolated events, but I am willing to accept the view most widely held by historians. Perhaps that is because I am more neutral towards Islam than you are, although I'm not a fan of religion in general.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:There were also 2 massacres of Jews by Christians as well, but over the course of 700 years in the Middle Ages that's a fairly small amount compared to what was going on at the time.
I would have thought that hatred and hostility would lead to oppression, which was not the case.

Oh, come on. Surely the Convention on Human rights etc was in place back then? No? Nothing such as The Inquisition? No r@pe, pillage or slavery back then? Methinks Duty has extrapolated a bit far back into antiquity in desperate attempt to support a position.

Those in positions of power/influence in the UN, America, Britain etc knew exactly what had just happened in the Polish death camps etc, but still they stood by and pretty much ignored the nascent Israeli state's behaviour in the late 40s, and onwards to the present day. Maybe back then, they were all feeling a little guilty and desensitised by WWII, which is understandable I think. However, that's not an excuse now.

Julius brought up Spain, not myself, as some apparent golden age utopia of Islam acting benevolently towards the Jewish faith. A time where they lived side-by-side in perfect harmony. Although the reality was, as it so often was, oppression, segregation, second-class status and murder of the Jewish citizenry.

At no point did I claim it was a utopia or describe it as perfect, as far as I can recall. The term 'Golden Age' is not my invention.
I'm aware of critiques and isolated events, but I am willing to accept the view most widely held by historians. Perhaps that is because I am more neutral towards Islam than you are, although I'm not a fan of religion in general.

May have been a bit of hyperbole on my part, but you did say Muslims and Jews lived peacefully side-by-side in Spain. This just isn't correct. At best, you can say Jews were second-class citizens, in a form of apartheid.

It's also a widely disputed view about there being a Golden Age. And it appears to have been, even if you accept a Golden Age, a relative Golden Age at that (i.e. yes the Jews are treated badly in Spain, but it could be worse, they could be living under Christian rule), lasting perhaps little more than a century. 700 years of peaceful living? Certainly not.

Looks like Starmer's facing a revolt. 56 of 198 Labour MPs rebelling against him and voting for a ceasefire, meaning eight shadow ministers have resigned/will be sacked from the frontbench. That's a sizable rebellion.

Have to love the BBC's brilliant online journalism, initially claiming that the eight shadow ministers had left Labour entirely.

Would add that this is probably the biggest misstep of Starmer's Labour leadership so far.

Those were the norms of the time. It was not driven by hostility towards or hatred of Jews, but by the standard religious power structures of that period, which for the Muslims included a much greater tolerance towards the Jews, compared to the Christians.

http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/p10098.pdf

"This coexistence is particularly evident in economic life. Jews were not limited to a small range of pursuits isolated from the rest of the population in deplored professions like moneylending, as in Europe. They worked as craftsmen, pharmacists, and physicians; as craftsmen in textiles, in glassmaking, and in jewelry; as retailers in the marketplace specializing in a whole host of products, including foodstuffs; in long-distance commerce, as government functionaries; and in many other walks of life."

"Jews mixed freely with their Muslim counterparts, even forming partnerships, with a minimum of friction. Jews lent money to Muslims, but the reverse was also true."

"Jews occupied a permanent niche within the hierarchical social order of Islam, and, though marginalized, they were not ostracized or expelled"

That doesn't sound like active hatred to me, just the way things worked back then when there was one religion in charge.

Duty281 wrote:Looks like Starmer's facing a revolt. 56 of 198 Labour MPs rebelling against him and voting for a ceasefire, meaning eight shadow ministers have resigned/will be sacked from the frontbench. That's a sizable rebellion.

Have to love the BBC's brilliant online journalism, initially claiming that the eight shadow ministers had left Labour entirely.

Would add that this is probably the biggest misstep of Starmer's Labour leadership so far.

I quite like the idea of the Tories and Labour imploding at the same time.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Those were the norms of the time. It was not driven by hostility towards or hatred of Jews, but by the standard religious power structures of that period, which for the Muslims included a much greater tolerance towards the Jews, compared to the Christians.

http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/p10098.pdf

"This coexistence is particularly evident in economic life. Jews were not limited to a small range of pursuits isolated from the rest of the population in deplored professions like moneylending, as in Europe. They worked as craftsmen, pharmacists, and physicians; as craftsmen in textiles, in glassmaking, and in jewelry; as retailers in the marketplace specializing in a whole host of products, including foodstuffs; in long-distance commerce, as government functionaries; and in many other walks of life."

"Jews mixed freely with their Muslim counterparts, even forming partnerships, with a minimum of friction. Jews lent money to Muslims, but the reverse was also true."

"Jews occupied a permanent niche within the hierarchical social order of Islam, and, though marginalized, they were not ostracized or expelled"

That doesn't sound like active hatred to me, just the way things worked back then when there was one religion in charge.

It was driven by a hostility towards *any* religion that wasn't Islam, including Judaism, and any religious people who weren't Muslim, including Jews.

Yes, this was certainly the norm at the time, but the point is the Islamic religion in Spain, when it controlled Spain, subjugated the Jewish people. They did not live side-by-side. Your link also says that Islam was only more tolerant towards the Jews than the Christians in a 'qualified sense'.

"Adherents of the religion in power considered it their right and duty to treat the others as inferiors rejected by God, and, in extreme cases, to treat them harshly, even to encourage them (in some cases by force) to abandon their faith in favor of the faith of the rulers."

That does sound like active hatred. And the original point was that Islam has despised Judaism since its inception. And this originates from the Quran and the Hadith, and is evidenced throughout history with numerous massacres and crimes carried out against the Jewish people by Islamic populations. This leads us back to Israel/Palestine, where even if Israel granted a free Palestinian state, it would not eradicate the bloodlust that Hamas has for the Jews of Israel. Some people seem to think that if only Israel took a step back, and allowed a free Palestine, then all the hostility would cease. That is a fantasy. Israel knows this, hence why it acts the way it does.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Looks like Starmer's facing a revolt. 56 of 198 Labour MPs rebelling against him and voting for a ceasefire, meaning eight shadow ministers have resigned/will be sacked from the frontbench. That's a sizable rebellion.

Have to love the BBC's brilliant online journalism, initially claiming that the eight shadow ministers had left Labour entirely.

Would add that this is probably the biggest misstep of Starmer's Labour leadership so far.

I quite like the idea of the Tories and Labour imploding at the same time.

Yes, quite joyous. Beating a tired drum, but they would both be finished tomorrow if PR was introduced.

I'm also astounded at Starmer's lack of political nous. He's heading for number ten purely because the Tories are woeful. Blair, though despicable, had political skill. Doesn't bode well for a Starmer premiership, but I suppose it can't be much worse.

Duty281 wrote:"Adherents of the religion in power considered it their right and duty to treat the others as inferiors rejected by God, and, in extreme cases, to treat them harshly, even to encourage them (in some cases by force) to abandon their faith in favor of the faith of the rulers."

Except the Muslims is Spain at that time were not the extreme cases.
Did they treat them as inferior, yes. Did they hate them, no -
"Jews mixed freely with their Muslim counterparts, even forming partnerships, with a minimum of friction. Jews lent money to Muslims, but the reverse was also true."
"Jews occupied a permanent niche within the hierarchical social order of Islam, and, though marginalized, they were not ostracized or expelled"

The problem with wiping out Hamas is that doing it by killing 1000's of innocent Palestinians, including women, children and babies (and seemingly not killing many Hamas) means that the next generation of Hamas 2.0 is already being formed. You can't achieve security and peace by creating more enemies than you had to start with, nor by acting only slightly less appallingly than you enemies.
As I mentioned before, the bloodshed will be most likely be going on long after we are dead, albeit with peaks and troughs over the years. It won't cease with a two-state solution, and it won't cease without one. I think it would lessen with the former, but that can only happen if 2 exceptional leaders come along at the same time, which is unlikely, so we are stuck with the latter. At the moment both sides are led by cruel, brutal extremist leaders, and we are seeing the deaths of thousands of innocents for which both sides have to bear some responsibility.

Yes, I agree with your last paragraph. Unfortunately I can't see a peaceful end to the cycle of violence, either.

Last two polls putting the Tories down to 19%. They'll probably rebound upwards soon enough, but it's still amusing to see for now.

Reform up to 10/11% on those two polls, which is around what UKIP got in 2015. If Nigel returned to lead them then they could threaten 20%, but he appears to be doing something else at the minute.

Duty281 wrote:....Even if the Palestinians were honourably treated, Israel would still be subject to attack. Even if Israel now ceased bombing Palestine, Hamas would come for them on another day, after rebuilding their strength. Islam is not tolerant of Judaism and the Jewish people, and Israel can make as many concessions as it likes, but that fundamental fact will not change (until Islam drastically reforms, which is very unlikely).

So the solution is.....no solution, more deaths (primarily Palestinian/Arab) from here to eternity?

I disagree that even if Palestinians were well-treated, Israel would still be under attack. Yes, that's perhaps more likely now, as Israel and the US (primarily) have ensured the situation is as it now is, with much less willingness towards peaceful engagement with Israel. I also disagree that just because of your sort of position, that's somehow an excuse not to give the Palestinians the just outcome that the UN has already decreed they should receive. Then again, it suits Israel and the US to use your sort of justification to avoid having to confront what they should actually be doing.

Radical Islam is intolerant, but that's not limited to those who are Jewish, and Islam (IMO) does need to go through its own Enlightenment etc. Too much of it is loosely at the point comparable to the time of the Inquisition, Reformation and the European religious wars etc. If the Palestinian issue was settled, those in Iran etc would have very little ground to stand on except xenophobia and religious zealotry. As it stands now, they can wave the Israel/Palestine question around as some sort of justification.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:....Even if the Palestinians were honourably treated, Israel would still be subject to attack. Even if Israel now ceased bombing Palestine, Hamas would come for them on another day, after rebuilding their strength. Islam is not tolerant of Judaism and the Jewish people, and Israel can make as many concessions as it likes, but that fundamental fact will not change (until Islam drastically reforms, which is very unlikely).

So the solution is.....no solution, more deaths (primarily Palestinian/Arab) from here to eternity?

I disagree that even if Palestinians were well-treated, Israel would still be under attack. Yes, that's perhaps more likely now, as Israel and the US (primarily) have ensured the situation is as it now is, with much less willingness towards peaceful engagement with Israel. I also disagree that just because of your sort of position, that's somehow an excuse not to give the Palestinians the just outcome that the UN has already decreed they should receive. Then again, it suits Israel and the US to use your sort of justification to avoid having to confront what they should actually be doing.

Radical Islam is intolerant, but that's not limited to those who are Jewish, and Islam (IMO) does need to go through its own Enlightenment etc. Too much of it is loosely at the point comparable to the time of the Inquisition, Reformation and the European religious wars etc. If the Palestinian issue was settled, those in Iran etc would have very little ground to stand on except xenophobia and religious zealotry. As it stands now, they can wave the Israel/Palestine question around as some sort of justification.

Yeah, I have no solution, other than people learning to love thy neighbour and not believe in fairy tales.

Israel can give Palestine a free state of their own, but they'll still be attacked. They can give a ceasefire now, but Hamas will break it just like they did on October 7th. If the issue was settled, another justification would be found in due course. There is no solution because most of the Middle East absolutely despises the Jews. Israel knows this, hence why they act in the way they do.

I agree Islam (just Islam for me, no need to put radical before it) isn't just intolerant to Judaism. It's intolerant to anything that isn't Islamic, and that intolerance extends to LGBT people and women. Good thing we don't have a rising Islamic population in this country and Western Europe. Oh, yeah....

The vast majority of Muslims in this country are tolerant to things that are not Islamic. Perhaps that is the influence of living alongside us. The key is to make sure those 'gains' are increased and not lost.
Seeing the actions of Israel, who are currently indiscriminately killing Palestinians, will make those who are intolerant more intolerant, and make some who tolerant become intolerant, not just to Israel but to those Western countries that support them.
I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but that is how it is.
Additionally if you tell tolerant people that the religion is intolerant, then you also run the risk of making them intolerant, because why should they even try to be tolerant only to be told they are not - that's just human nature.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The vast majority of Muslims in this country are tolerant to things that are not Islamic. Perhaps that is the influence of living alongside us. The key is to make sure those 'gains' are increased and not lost.
Seeing the actions of Israel, who are currently indiscriminately killing Palestinians, will make those who are intolerant more intolerant, and make some who tolerant become intolerant, not just to Israel but to those Western countries that support them.
I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but that is how it is.  
Additionally if you tell tolerant people that the religion is intolerant, then you also run the risk of making them intolerant, because why should they even try to be tolerant only to be told they are not - that's just human nature.

I think vast majority is stretching it a little, because overall attitudes of Muslims in the UK towards women, homosexuals and free speech can be described as quite concerning.

But I do agree the influence of living in a socially liberal society is important, and hopefully it will win out in the long run. Hopefully.

One for you, Duty. I see Ai Weiwei had his exhibition pulled because he made the mistake of posting some remark that doesn't gel with the pro-Israel groupthink going on just now. Q.E.D. Must be an anti-Semite. Suspect if he'd happened to have posted something comparable against the Palestinians, nothing would have happened...

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The vast majority of Muslims in this country are tolerant to things that are not Islamic. Perhaps that is the influence of living alongside us. The key is to make sure those 'gains' are increased and not lost.
Seeing the actions of Israel, who are currently indiscriminately killing Palestinians, will make those who are intolerant more intolerant, and make some who tolerant become intolerant, not just to Israel but to those Western countries that support them.
I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but that is how it is.  
Additionally if you tell tolerant people that the religion is intolerant, then you also run the risk of making them intolerant, because why should they even try to be tolerant only to be told they are not - that's just human nature.

I think vast majority is stretching it a little, because overall attitudes of Muslims in the UK towards women, homosexuals and free speech can be described as quite concerning.

But I do agree the influence of living in a socially liberal society is important, and hopefully it will win out in the long run. Hopefully.

I disagree. Tolerant, yes. Agree with? Not necessarily. Isn't that what we want though? Living equitably with one another even while disagreeing over various aspects of life? What someone believes in the own head is up to them, no matter how ridiculous. Shame about the children, though....

navyblueshorts wrote:One for you, Duty. I see Ai Weiwei had his exhibition pulled because he made the mistake of posting some remark that doesn't gel with the pro-Israel groupthink going on just now. Q.E.D. Must be an anti-Semite. Suspect if he'd happened to have posted something comparable against the Palestinians, nothing would have happened...

The gallery seem to disagree with your last point, because they said: "There is no place for debate that can be characterised as antisemitic or Islamophobic."

Also it appears to have been pulled because the disputes would have overshadowed the exhibition and for the wellbeing of the artist in question: "The artist told the Art Newspaper that his show has “effectively [been] cancelled” – but noted that the decision was taken “to avoid further disputes and for my own wellbeing”.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The vast majority of Muslims in this country are tolerant to things that are not Islamic. Perhaps that is the influence of living alongside us. The key is to make sure those 'gains' are increased and not lost.
Seeing the actions of Israel, who are currently indiscriminately killing Palestinians, will make those who are intolerant more intolerant, and make some who tolerant become intolerant, not just to Israel but to those Western countries that support them.
I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but that is how it is.  
Additionally if you tell tolerant people that the religion is intolerant, then you also run the risk of making them intolerant, because why should they even try to be tolerant only to be told they are not - that's just human nature.

I think vast majority is stretching it a little, because overall attitudes of Muslims in the UK towards women, homosexuals and free speech can be described as quite concerning.

But I do agree the influence of living in a socially liberal society is important, and hopefully it will win out in the long run. Hopefully.

I disagree. Tolerant, yes. Agree with? Not necessarily. Isn't that what we want though? Living equitably with one another even while disagreeing over various aspects of life? What someone believes in the own head is up to them, no matter how ridiculous. Shame about the children, though....

I don't mind simple disagreements, but when you see polls that show half of Muslims in the UK disagree with homosexuality being legal, that's concerning.

As David Cameron was not a serving Member of Parliament, King Charles had to make him a Lord so that he could become Foreign Minister in Rishi Sunak's Government.


"On 13 November 2023, in Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's cabinet reshuffle, Cameron was appointed Foreign Secretary replacing James Cleverly who was appointed Home Secretary.

It was simultaneously announced that Cameron would receive a life peerage, making him a member of the House of Lords ... Cameron is to consult with Garter King of Arms in determining his title and territorial designation, so as to not to duplicate previously created peerages."

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The vast majority of Muslims in this country are tolerant to things that are not Islamic. Perhaps that is the influence of living alongside us. The key is to make sure those 'gains' are increased and not lost.
Seeing the actions of Israel, who are currently indiscriminately killing Palestinians, will make those who are intolerant more intolerant, and make some who tolerant become intolerant, not just to Israel but to those Western countries that support them.
I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but that is how it is.  
Additionally if you tell tolerant people that the religion is intolerant, then you also run the risk of making them intolerant, because why should they even try to be tolerant only to be told they are not - that's just human nature.

I think vast majority is stretching it a little, because overall attitudes of Muslims in the UK towards women, homosexuals and free speech can be described as quite concerning.

But I do agree the influence of living in a socially liberal society is important, and hopefully it will win out in the long run. Hopefully.

I disagree. Tolerant, yes. Agree with? Not necessarily. Isn't that what we want though? Living equitably with one another even while disagreeing over various aspects of life? What someone believes in the own head is up to them, no matter how ridiculous. Shame about the children, though....

What is a concern though is those who believe that drawing a cartoon or writing a book is ground for a beheading. They then are free to protest about it with chants and placards calling for said execution. That doesn't suggest to me they are respectful of other peoples views and integrating into society.

mountain man wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The vast majority of Muslims in this country are tolerant to things that are not Islamic. Perhaps that is the influence of living alongside us. The key is to make sure those 'gains' are increased and not lost.
Seeing the actions of Israel, who are currently indiscriminately killing Palestinians, will make those who are intolerant more intolerant, and make some who tolerant become intolerant, not just to Israel but to those Western countries that support them.
I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but that is how it is.  
Additionally if you tell tolerant people that the religion is intolerant, then you also run the risk of making them intolerant, because why should they even try to be tolerant only to be told they are not - that's just human nature.

I think vast majority is stretching it a little, because overall attitudes of Muslims in the UK towards women, homosexuals and free speech can be described as quite concerning.

But I do agree the influence of living in a socially liberal society is important, and hopefully it will win out in the long run. Hopefully.

I disagree. Tolerant, yes. Agree with? Not necessarily. Isn't that what we want though? Living equitably with one another even while disagreeing over various aspects of life? What someone believes in the own head is up to them, no matter how ridiculous. Shame about the children, though....

What is a concern though is those who believe that drawing a cartoon or writing a book is ground for a beheading. They then are free to protest about it with chants and placards calling for said execution. That doesn't suggest to me they are respectful of other peoples views and integrating into society.

Yep. Don't disagree with this, at all. However, the trouble with estimating whether a silent majority exists is just that - they're silent. I have a problem with religion. Period. However, while I do accept that it can be a force for good, I draw a line at anyone, of any religious persuasion, attempting to crush debate or force their own beliefs on anyone else at all. Whatever they think inside their own skulls is fine by me, as long as it more or less stays there.

So, my daughter, who Duty established as antisemitic by attending the pro-Palestine march last weekend, is also attending the march against antisemitism tomorrow.
Of course, we know that she is antisemitic, and that anyone who marches alongside her, an antisemitic, is also antisemitic themselves - so anyone else on the march against antisemitism tomorrow will actually be antisemitic.

JuliusHMarx wrote:So, my daughter, who Duty established as antisemitic by attending the pro-Palestine march last weekend, is also attending the march against antisemitism tomorrow.
Of course, we know that she is antisemitic, and that anyone who marches alongside her, an antisemitic, is also antisemitic themselves - so anyone else on the march against antisemitism tomorrow will actually be antisemitic.

Maybe she's infiltrating it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:So, my daughter, who Duty established as antisemitic by attending the pro-Palestine march last weekend, is also attending the march against antisemitism tomorrow.
Of course, we know that she is antisemitic, and that anyone who marches alongside her, an antisemitic, is also antisemitic themselves - so anyone else on the march against antisemitism tomorrow will actually be antisemitic.

Following that logic (and of course it is entirely logical as Duty is always logical and history always proves him correct) doesn't her presence on tomorrow's march retrospectively make everyone who marched alongside her last week not antisemitic?

superflyweight wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So, my daughter, who Duty established as antisemitic by attending the pro-Palestine march last weekend, is also attending the march against antisemitism tomorrow.
Of course, we know that she is antisemitic, and that anyone who marches alongside her, an antisemitic, is also antisemitic themselves - so anyone else on the march against antisemitism tomorrow will actually be antisemitic.

Following that logic (and of course it is entirely logical as Duty is always logical and history always proves him correct) doesn't her presence on tomorrow's march retrospectively make everyone who marched alongside her last week not antisemitic?    

I think, by association, it is fair to say that everyone in London is both Palestinian and Jewish.