Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[super_realist]

Then why aren't they consistent? They've called ISIS terrorists, John Simpson himself, has referred to groups as terrorists.

Taking a side against Hamas, isn't taking a side against Palestinians nor is it pro Israel, so the "side taking" excuse doesn't wash.

[navyblueshorts]

Then why aren't they consistent? They've called ISIS terrorists, John Simpson himself, has referred to groups as terrorists.

Taking a side against Hamas, isn't taking a side against Palestinians nor is it pro Israel, so the "side taking" excuse doesn't wash.

I have no idea - perhaps it's to do with their being the elected representatives in Gaza? In general, I'd prefer media outlets to just report facts as they find them, and let us make our own minds up about them. It's a side-show in any case and just being used to lambast the BBC by the usual suspects.

[super_realist]

Then why aren't they consistent? They've called ISIS terrorists, John Simpson himself, has referred to groups as terrorists.

Taking a side against Hamas, isn't taking a side against Palestinians nor is it pro Israel, so the "side taking" excuse doesn't wash.

I have no idea - perhaps it's to do with their being the elected representatives in Gaza? In general, I'd prefer media outlets to just report facts as they find them, and let us make our own minds up about them. It's a side-show in any case and just being used to lambast the BBC by the usual suspects.

By definition they are terrorists. That is a fact. If you specifically and deliberately plan to and actually attack civilians in another sovereign nation it's a terrorist attack and by definition the perpetrators are therefore terrorists.
FYI, Hamas last election was 2011. Being elected doesn't mean you escape the moniker of terrorist in any event.

[JAS]

Hope all you good people up norf are staying safe and out of Babets way? See my beloved Carnoustie is underwater again.

[super_realist]

Hope all you good people up norf are staying safe and out of Babets way? See my beloved Carnoustie is underwater again.

#prayforBrechin

Have to wonder how someone can be so stupid to get washed away in a river. Why would go anywhere near one in such weather? Real Darwin Award stuff.

Furthermore if you live near a watercourse and 25cm of rain is forecast in a 24/36 hour period why would you not move your car to a higher place or onto a hill etc to prevent it getting written off by floodwater?
I swear a lot of the fallout you see from flooding is down to utter stupidity, recklessness and frankly, laziness.

[super_realist]

BBC apologising for biased reporting again.

[navyblueshorts]

BBC apologising for biased reporting again.

And?

Would actually be helpful if you could find the energy to link your comment to something we can use to comment on .

[super_realist]

BBC apologising for biased reporting again.

And?

Would actually be helpful if you could find the energy to link your comment to something we can use to comment on .

Presumed you'd be aware Navy.
BBC accused Israel of bombing a hospital, saying "it could only have been Israel"  before hastily withdrawing that accusation as they were seemingly unaware that 25% of bombs from Gaza fail to leave Gaza.
Reporter has been reprimanded. Also had to apologise for a story on BBC Asia praising Hamas.

Still waiting to hear why you think it's a service worth paying for.
Can you name anything quality it produces?

[navyblueshorts]

BBC apologising for biased reporting again.

And?

Would actually be helpful if you could find the energy to link your comment to something we can use to comment on .

Presumed you'd be aware Navy.
BBC accused Israel of bombing a hospital, saying "it could only have been Israel"  before hastily withdrawing that accusation as they were seemingly unaware that 25% of bombs from Gaza fail to leave Gaza.
Reporter has been reprimanded. Also had to apologise for a story on BBC Asia praising Hamas.

Still waiting to hear why you think it's a service worth paying for.
Can you name anything quality it produces?

No. I'm not aware, and care almost as much. The BBC weren't the only ones jumping in too fast over that hospital incident, so careful on that high horse. They did, apparently, withdraw the accusation, so not sure what more they could have done once everyone had frothed over the initial reports. A mistake is not necessarily bias, either; just thought I'd point that out.
TBH, perhaps the rush to blame Israel reflects what everyone really knows about typical IDF operations?

Careless journalism is apparently contagious - I see Kay Burley got pulled up over misrepresenting what was said by the Palestinian Ambassador recently.

Re. so-say BBC 'praise' of Hamas, I'll keep my powder dry until you can point to the exact quote and the context in which it was given.

I'm not going to engage re. their service w/ you anymore. It's not worth the time/effort. You hate them; I think they're of overall value. Not a lot else to say in that conversation, I think.

[super_realist]

BBC apologising for biased reporting again.

And?

Would actually be helpful if you could find the energy to link your comment to something we can use to comment on .

Presumed you'd be aware Navy.
BBC accused Israel of bombing a hospital, saying "it is hard to see where else this could have come from " before hastily withdrawing that accusation as they were seemingly unaware that 25% of bombs from Gaza fail to leave Gaza.
Reporter has been reprimanded. Also had to apologise for a story on BBC Asia praising Hamas.

Still waiting to hear why you think it's a service worth paying for.
Can you name anything quality it produces?

No. I'm not aware, and care almost as much. The BBC weren't the only ones jumping in too fast over that hospital incident, so careful on that high horse. They did, apparently, withdraw the accusation, so not sure what more they could have done once everyone had frothed over the initial reports. A mistake is not necessarily bias, either; just thought I'd point that out.
TBH, perhaps the rush to blame Israel reflects what everyone really knows about typical IDF operations?

Careless journalism is apparently contagious - I see Kay Burley got pulled up over misrepresenting what was said by the Palestinian Ambassador recently.

Re. so-say BBC 'praise' of Hamas, I'll keep my powder dry until you can point to the exact quote and the context in which it was given.

I'm not going to engage re. their service w/ you anymore. It's not worth the time/effort. You hate them; I think they're of overall value. Not a lot else to say in that conversation, I think.

Perhaps if they weren't so desperate to cast blame they might actually do some journalism first, what was worse HOW they reported in that the alleged journalist said "it could only have come from Israel", so desperate were they to take a side, something which they supposedly don't do.


BBC News Arabic described tje attacks as a "morning of hope"

They also let slip at one point as well that they did refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation and they also removed that Freudian slip immediately.
Like the useless NHS, the BBC needs serious reform/privatised.

[navyblueshorts]

BBC apologising for biased reporting again.

And?

Would actually be helpful if you could find the energy to link your comment to something we can use to comment on .

Presumed you'd be aware Navy.
BBC accused Israel of bombing a hospital, saying "it is hard to see where else this could have come from " before hastily withdrawing that accusation as they were seemingly unaware that 25% of bombs from Gaza fail to leave Gaza.
Reporter has been reprimanded. Also had to apologise for a story on BBC Asia praising Hamas.

Still waiting to hear why you think it's a service worth paying for.
Can you name anything quality it produces?

No. I'm not aware, and care almost as much. The BBC weren't the only ones jumping in too fast over that hospital incident, so careful on that high horse. They did, apparently, withdraw the accusation, so not sure what more they could have done once everyone had frothed over the initial reports. A mistake is not necessarily bias, either; just thought I'd point that out.
TBH, perhaps the rush to blame Israel reflects what everyone really knows about typical IDF operations?

Careless journalism is apparently contagious - I see Kay Burley got pulled up over misrepresenting what was said by the Palestinian Ambassador recently.

Re. so-say BBC 'praise' of Hamas, I'll keep my powder dry until you can point to the exact quote and the context in which it was given.

I'm not going to engage re. their service w/ you anymore. It's not worth the time/effort. You hate them; I think they're of overall value. Not a lot else to say in that conversation, I think.

Perhaps if they weren't so desperate to cast blame they might actually do some journalism first, what was worse HOW they reported in that the alleged journalist said "it could only have come from Israel", so desperate were they to take a side, something which they supposedly don't do.

Clearly a screw up, but in a rushed broadcast w/ people pushing for info, I can understand the comment re. Israeli origins - they were the ones lobbing incoming ordnance at Gaza. Saying something "can only have come from Israel" can quite easily be seen as factual (even if ultimately wrong), and doesn't necessarily equate to taking sides.

BBC News Arabic described tje attacks as a "morning of hope"

They also let slip at one point as well that they did refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation and they also removed that Freudian slip immediately.
Like the useless NHS, the BBC needs serious reform/privatised.

Unless I'm missing something, that's no link to the specific quote, nor the context in which it was uttered. It would be very different, for example, for a reporter to be simply reporting what various sources had said re. the Hamas attack cf. making that statement him/herself.

[super_realist]

BBC apologising for biased reporting again.

And?

Would actually be helpful if you could find the energy to link your comment to something we can use to comment on .

Presumed you'd be aware Navy.
BBC accused Israel of bombing a hospital, saying "it is hard to see where else this could have come from " before hastily withdrawing that accusation as they were seemingly unaware that 25% of bombs from Gaza fail to leave Gaza.
Reporter has been reprimanded. Also had to apologise for a story on BBC Asia praising Hamas.

Still waiting to hear why you think it's a service worth paying for.
Can you name anything quality it produces?

No. I'm not aware, and care almost as much. The BBC weren't the only ones jumping in too fast over that hospital incident, so careful on that high horse. They did, apparently, withdraw the accusation, so not sure what more they could have done once everyone had frothed over the initial reports. A mistake is not necessarily bias, either; just thought I'd point that out.
TBH, perhaps the rush to blame Israel reflects what everyone really knows about typical IDF operations?

Careless journalism is apparently contagious - I see Kay Burley got pulled up over misrepresenting what was said by the Palestinian Ambassador recently.

Re. so-say BBC 'praise' of Hamas, I'll keep my powder dry until you can point to the exact quote and the context in which it was given.

I'm not going to engage re. their service w/ you anymore. It's not worth the time/effort. You hate them; I think they're of overall value. Not a lot else to say in that conversation, I think.

Perhaps if they weren't so desperate to cast blame they might actually do some journalism first, what was worse HOW they reported in that the alleged journalist said "it could only have come from Israel", so desperate were they to take a side, something which they supposedly don't do.

Clearly a screw up, but in a rushed broadcast w/ people pushing for info, I can understand the comment re. Israeli origins - they were the ones lobbing incoming ordnance at Gaza. Saying something "can only have come from Israel" can quite easily be seen as factual (even if ultimately wrong), and doesn't necessarily equate to taking sides.

BBC News Arabic described tje attacks as a "morning of hope"

They also let slip at one point as well that they did refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation and they also removed that Freudian slip immediately.
Like the useless NHS, the BBC needs serious reform/privatised.

Unless I'm missing something, that's no link to the specific quote, nor the context in which it was uttered. It would be very different, for example, for a reporter to be simply reporting what various sources had said re. the Hamas attack cf. making that statement him/herself.

Saying it can only come from Israel is completely ignoring the ineptitude of Gaza ordnance and Gaza terrorists and their willingness to use their own people as worthless pawns to escalate things.
It is a desperation to blame Israel rather than do their job properly.

What context is there ever to be happy with a terrorist attack?
What ever happend to editors?

[navyblueshorts]

....Saying it can only come from Israel is completely ignoring the ineptitude of Gaza ordnance and Gaza terrorists and their willingness to use their own people as worthless pawns to escalate things.
It is a desperation to blame Israel rather than do their job properly.

What context is there ever to be happy with a terrorist attack?
What ever happend to editors?

It's not desperation; it's a mistake made in a rush. Like many other news outlets at the same time. In my opinion.

Re. context and the originating terrorism from Hamas, I'm afraid if all anyone can do is parrot the same old nonsense about ignoring context here, this problem is going nowhere. This has relevant context going back to 1947/48, and arguably earlier. Go read about Deir Yassin, Sa'sa', Lydda, Sabra, Shatila etc. Find out about the way the budding, and fully formed, IDF treated innocents, women and children and the arguably genocidal thinking behind it. Realise that the instigators/leaders of this sort of barbarity (i.e. Shamir, Begin, Sharon etc etc) actually became the leaders of the state now committing war crimes in Gaza - their politicians are, literally, bathed in blood and know no other way. Detonating a village mosque, for example, and killing ~60 of it's innocent occupants sheltering there isn't that different, in form or motivation, to reprisal murders committed by the Das Reich in Oradour-sur-Glane. The regime that committed the latter is universally and rightly condemned as evil, but that committing the former is strangely supported, no questions asked, by the US and UK, amongst others.
Context is essential here, but Israel is trying, as always, to shut any conversation of that down. As usual, they're weaponising the Holocaust etc as justification for their own awful behaviour, knowing that 'The West' has feelings of guilt over it and knowing they'll simply turn their eyes away from Israeli atrocities. Israel has been in breech of UN resolutions for decades re. a Palestinian state, and been allowed to get away with it, starting w/ UN Resolution 181 in 1947 for the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Enough this time.

To be clear on Hamas and Oct 7th, what they did was the very definition of terrorism and utterly abhorrent, but it's fine to condemn that unequivocally and still be aware that the context in which it occurred is real and relevant to the ongoing and future situation in Palestine/Israel.

Re. editorial oversight these days, I agree. I guess they got rid of a lot of the subs to save money.

Incidentally, I still don't have any link to any direct quote from some BBC Asia correspondent whom allegedly praised Hamas....

[pedro]

Navy, you’re relativising it. Just like the left has always relativised atrocities commited by anti-democratic, dictatorial, communist, fascist, islamist, medieval etc. organisations, groups or states. It seems if someone has some kind of sympathy for a case they are willing to relativise anything that is done in its name. Maybe the Palestinians, as well as other groups in that part of the world, should stand up against their own dictatorial regimes (in this case Hamas) or accept that they once actually elected them. I’m not saying Israel are angels, but in light of all the conflicts in the past 75 years, Gazans have also to some degree made their own bed.

[Pal Joey]

It must be hard to stand up against a dictatorial political regime armed to the teeth though Pedro but I can see what you're saying. The Palestinians in Gaza were no doubt assured by Hamas that they would stand up for them and protect them but also probably knew by what means, i.e. whipping up intense hatred of the Israeli 'gatekeepers' and occupiers and vowing to break that stranglehold by use of whatever force or terror they could muster.

I heard an interesting comparison (on the BBC!) the other day comparing the long struggle in NI with what we are witnessing now in Israel-Gaza. The expert (I missed his name) suggested that although the IRA / Sinn Fein were also after self rule in their home land, political freedom and felt divided along religious lines - their terrorist attacks were initially against the RUC, British Army (as well as their own police and army) but then extended to civilian attacks in England and NI which took many innocent lives towards the end of the 20th C.

The solution was to bring the extreme elements on both sides to the negotiating table and ultimately giving them (Gerry Adams.. Sinn Fein) real political power or initial access to it. I remember being both angry and shocked when I first heard that back in the 90s but what this expert was saying was that it took more than just a radical solution to end the violence. It also relied on a large degree of trust and understanding from both sides of the divide and this was derived through an acceptance or belief of rational (Western) thought - despite all the horrible things which had occurred up until that time.

Unfortunately, in regards to the current situation in Israel-Gaza-West Bank, the main protagonists (on both sides as well as all the proxy states and splinter groups) simply don't have the right mindset, rational thought, common will, historical or political framework, nor the slightest inclination to find any form of political and religious compromise (unlike in the UK and NI in the 90s) and instead have vowed complete destruction of each other. Thus, the chance of any 2-state solution has been pushed back to zero probability again. Just can't see that ever happening.

The only way forward would be to completely destroy Hamas but also replace the hard line Bibi-led government with something more moderate... but that wouldn't work either as you'd get the extreme Zionists reacting with more vigour as well as a perceived weakening from the opportunist northern neighbours looking for their chance to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.

My personal view is that it is a practically hopeless and unsolvable situation there and it's better to keep out of it; not take sides and don't get dragged in by our leaders making sensitive comments which might draw more unwanted attention or civil unrest towards or within our own countries.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy, you’re relativising it. Just like the left has always relativised atrocities commited by anti-democratic, dictatorial, communist, fascist, islamist, medieval etc. organisations, groups or states. It seems if someone has some kind of sympathy for a case they are willing to relativise anything that is done in its name. Maybe the Palestinians, as well as other groups in that part of the world, should stand up against their own dictatorial regimes (in this case Hamas) or accept that they once actually elected them. I’m not saying Israel are angels, but in light of all the conflicts in the past 75 years, Gazans have also to some degree made their own bed.

I'm not 'relativising' it, at all; I'm trying to ask someone like you to understand that context matters and there's no fix here without Israel giving the Palestinians an honourable solution. Maybe try reading some relevant history?

I'd rather be considered on the 'left' than someone who can happily wave by the behaviour of Israel and too many of their settlers/police/military.
You appear to have no insight as to why Gaza might have elected Hamas, who might have hoped that having been so elected, the 'West' would have engaged with them. We didn't though, because we didn't like the result - the wrong people won, so we ostracised them even more. Palestinians had the PLO/Fatah representing them for ages, and trying to simply get what they'd been promised by the UN, but to almost zero effect. Hardly surprising they turned to a more aggressive organisation to represent them, is it? And so here we are. Guterres was absolutely right - the Oct 7th attacks did not happen in any sort of vacuum.

I'd be quite interested to see you leading a stand against a dictatorial regime that could quite easily kill you and your family, without anyone asking any questions.

[navyblueshorts]

It must be hard to stand up against a dictatorial political regime armed to the teeth though Pedro but I can see what you're saying. The Palestinians in Gaza were no doubt assured by Hamas that they would stand up for them and protect them but also probably knew by what means, i.e. whipping up intense hatred of the Israeli 'gatekeepers' and occupiers and vowing to break that stranglehold by use of whatever force or terror they could muster.

I heard an interesting comparison (on the BBC!) the other day comparing the long struggle in NI with what we are witnessing now in Israel-Gaza. The expert (I missed his name) suggested that although the IRA / Sinn Fein were also after self rule in their home land, political freedom and felt divided along religious lines - their terrorist attacks were initially against the RUC, British Army (as well as their own police and army) but then extended to civilian attacks in England and NI which took many innocent lives towards the end of the 20th C.

The solution was to bring the extreme elements on both sides to the negotiating table and ultimately giving them (Gerry Adams.. Sinn Fein) real political power or initial access to it. I remember being both angry and shocked when I first heard that back in the 90s but what this expert was saying was that it took more than just a radical solution to end the violence. It also relied on a large degree of trust and understanding from both sides of the divide and this was derived through an acceptance or belief of rational (Western) thought - despite all the horrible things which had occurred up until that time.

Unfortunately, in regards to the current situation in Israel-Gaza-West Bank, the main protagonists (on both sides as well as all the proxy states and splinter groups) simply don't have the right mindset, rational thought, common will, historical or political framework, nor the slightest inclination to find any form of political and religious compromise (unlike in the UK and NI in the 90s) and instead have vowed complete destruction of each other. Thus, the chance of any 2-state solution has been pushed back to zero probability again. Just can't see that ever happening.

The only way forward would be to completely destroy Hamas but also replace the hard line Bibi-led government with something more moderate... but that wouldn't work either as you'd get the extreme Zionists reacting with more vigour as well as a perceived weakening from the opportunist northern neighbours looking for their chance to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.

My personal view is that it is a practically hopeless and unsolvable situation there and it's better to keep out of it; not take sides and don't get dragged in by our leaders making sensitive comments which might draw more unwanted attention or civil unrest towards or within our own countries.

The NI comparison is relevant, I think. This situation is even more extreme, though, and spans more countries. Iran needs 'dealing' with in some fashion as well, given their influence/support of groups such as Hezbollah. Only way I see an end is via the UN, but that body is an almost busted flush. If the US (or the UK) can simply veto any attempt made by others (and is unwilling to do anything via the influence it has on Israel), it's pretty useless.

[pedro]

You can say that Gazans are desperate. But the “freedom fighters” filmed their savagry on gopro, posted it on Facebook, called their mothers and bragging about it, praised their religion etc. It doesn’t sound like desperation, but that they’re actually proud of what they did. Pretty telling.

And even if we can agree it’s wrong, I don’t buy the whataboutery about settlers (on the West Bank) as that is a different discussion. Just as the police state methods in Israel may be questionable.

But I do know that Israel has been attacked numerous times since 1948. That Hamas is against a two state solution. That Hamas is pro the obliviation of Israel. How should this ever help their case? It’s just pure evil. Even their Arab brothers seem to avoid them.

In terms of standing up against dictatorial regimes, well, that is what we did here in Europe years ago and that’s why we are where we are.

[navyblueshorts]

You can say that Gazans are desperate. But the “freedom fighters” filmed their savagry on gopro, posted it on Facebook, called their mothers and bragging about it, praised their religion etc. It doesn’t sound like desperation, but that they’re actually proud of what they did. Pretty telling.

And even if we can agree it’s wrong, I don’t buy the whataboutery about settlers (on the West Bank) as that is a different discussion. Just as the police state methods in Israel may be questionable.

But I do know that Israel has been attacked numerous times since 1948. That Hamas is against a two state solution. That Hamas is pro the obliviation of Israel. How should this ever help their case? It’s just pure evil. Even their Arab brothers seem to avoid them.

In terms of standing up against dictatorial regimes, well, that is what we did here in Europe years ago and that’s why we are where we are.

I wrote precisely nothing about the West Bank, and Israeli settlers have put down roots throughout Israel, too often at the expense of the previous residents. Go and read about the hundreds of thousands displaced since the mid-1940s. Have a look at the locations of those displacements/killings etc. The majority were nowhere near the modern West Bank, that's a more modern issue.
Have a look at some of the reports/witness/survivor statements about what Israeli Irgun and Lehi fighters did and said as they killed innocents - I'm sure if they'd had FaceBook etc back in the late 1940s, they'd have been posting the same sort of atrocities all over it. Some of those that led those evictions/killings became Israeli heroes and leaders - Rabin, Shamir, Begin, Sharon etc. The language used by these from the past, and too many now, was/is genocidal.

It takes two to tango and I'd argue that as Israel holds most/all of the cards in the region (slavishly supported by the US and UK etc), they should be the 'big man' and be the ones to lead a drastic change of approach in the region. It's pathetic really - if you had two brothers fighting and both were in the wrong/had valid points, you'd ask the older/stronger individual to show some leadership and make the first move towards the peace/apologise. I'm curious as to what Israel really thinks the wider outcome is going to be if they flatten Gaza and butcher thousands of civilians in their quest to destroy Hamas which, even if they claim is successful, will do precisely nothing to ensure their safety/security in the longer term.

Maybe, at least in part, those attacks on Israel reflect anger on the part of the Arab world at what Israel has done, and continues to do, to the Palestinian people?

I do agree that Hamas's founding charter, which they won't disavow, calling for the destruction of Israel doesn't help their cause one iota. Ditto Hezbollah and Iran. Israel as a state is here to stay and I'm sure plenty of the population actually do want to just live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours.

'We' (I'm assuming you live in the UK, same as me) didn't do anything of the sort here in Europe. We didn't have to attempt to overthrow our own regime from the inside. I'm sure many Germans tried that from ~1933 to 1945; some may have even survived the attempts. Our grandparents etc went and fought an all-out war against Nazi Germany, which isn't the same, notwithstanding the bravery.

Seen much by way of revolution by Russian citizens against Putin's Russia? Nope, neither have I. I wonder why that might be?

[super_realist]

....Saying it can only come from Israel is completely ignoring the ineptitude of Gaza ordnance and Gaza terrorists and their willingness to use their own people as worthless pawns to escalate things.
It is a desperation to blame Israel rather than do their job properly.

What context is there ever to be happy with a terrorist attack?
What ever happend to editors?

It's not desperation; it's a mistake made in a rush. Like many other news outlets at the same time. In my opinion.

Re. context and the originating terrorism from Hamas, I'm afraid if all anyone can do is parrot the same old nonsense about ignoring context here, this problem is going nowhere. This has relevant context going back to 1947/48, and arguably earlier. Go read about Deir Yassin, Sa'sa', Lydda, Sabra, Shatila etc. Find out about the way the budding, and fully formed, IDF treated innocents, women and children and the arguably genocidal thinking behind it. Realise that the instigators/leaders of this sort of barbarity (i.e. Shamir, Begin, Sharon etc etc) actually became the leaders of the state now committing war crimes in Gaza - their politicians are, literally, bathed in blood and know no other way. Detonating a village mosque, for example, and killing ~60 of it's innocent occupants sheltering there isn't that different, in form or motivation, to reprisal murders committed by the Das Reich in Oradour-sur-Glane. The regime that committed the latter is universally and rightly condemned as evil, but that committing the former is strangely supported, no questions asked, by the US and UK, amongst others.
Context is essential here, but Israel is trying, as always, to shut any conversation of that down. As usual, they're weaponising the Holocaust etc as justification for their own awful behaviour, knowing that 'The West' has feelings of guilt over it and knowing they'll simply turn their eyes away from Israeli atrocities. Israel has been in breech of UN resolutions for decades re. a Palestinian state, and been allowed to get away with it, starting w/ UN Resolution 181 in 1947 for the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Enough this time.

To be clear on Hamas and Oct 7th, what they did was the very definition of terrorism and utterly abhorrent, but it's fine to condemn that unequivocally and still be aware that the context in which it occurred is real and relevant to the ongoing and future situation in Palestine/Israel.

Re. editorial oversight these days, I agree. I guess they got rid of a lot of the subs to save money.

Incidentally, I still don't have any link to any direct quote from some BBC Asia correspondent whom allegedly praised Hamas....

.
I gave you the quote. Why is it the BBC supposedly don't take sides but are clearly pro Palestinian?
It's funny you demand certain things of me, yet when I ask you for something you won't supply it.

[navyblueshorts]

....Saying it can only come from Israel is completely ignoring the ineptitude of Gaza ordnance and Gaza terrorists and their willingness to use their own people as worthless pawns to escalate things.
It is a desperation to blame Israel rather than do their job properly.

What context is there ever to be happy with a terrorist attack?
What ever happend to editors?

It's not desperation; it's a mistake made in a rush. Like many other news outlets at the same time. In my opinion.

Re. context and the originating terrorism from Hamas, I'm afraid if all anyone can do is parrot the same old nonsense about ignoring context here, this problem is going nowhere. This has relevant context going back to 1947/48, and arguably earlier. Go read about Deir Yassin, Sa'sa', Lydda, Sabra, Shatila etc. Find out about the way the budding, and fully formed, IDF treated innocents, women and children and the arguably genocidal thinking behind it. Realise that the instigators/leaders of this sort of barbarity (i.e. Shamir, Begin, Sharon etc etc) actually became the leaders of the state now committing war crimes in Gaza - their politicians are, literally, bathed in blood and know no other way. Detonating a village mosque, for example, and killing ~60 of it's innocent occupants sheltering there isn't that different, in form or motivation, to reprisal murders committed by the Das Reich in Oradour-sur-Glane. The regime that committed the latter is universally and rightly condemned as evil, but that committing the former is strangely supported, no questions asked, by the US and UK, amongst others.
Context is essential here, but Israel is trying, as always, to shut any conversation of that down. As usual, they're weaponising the Holocaust etc as justification for their own awful behaviour, knowing that 'The West' has feelings of guilt over it and knowing they'll simply turn their eyes away from Israeli atrocities. Israel has been in breech of UN resolutions for decades re. a Palestinian state, and been allowed to get away with it, starting w/ UN Resolution 181 in 1947 for the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Enough this time.

To be clear on Hamas and Oct 7th, what they did was the very definition of terrorism and utterly abhorrent, but it's fine to condemn that unequivocally and still be aware that the context in which it occurred is real and relevant to the ongoing and future situation in Palestine/Israel.

Re. editorial oversight these days, I agree. I guess they got rid of a lot of the subs to save money.

Incidentally, I still don't have any link to any direct quote from some BBC Asia correspondent whom allegedly praised Hamas....

.
I gave you the quote. Why is it the BBC supposedly don't take sides but are clearly pro Palestinian?
It's funny you demand certain things of me, yet when I ask you for something you won't supply it.

You gave me what you said was the quote. I simply asked you to point me in the direction of the actual quote, so that I can make up my own mind. Disinformation, and all that. The fact you can't/won't speaks volumes.

[JAS]

Maybe the quote was on a page that accidentally had a red, green and black backdrop which some professionally offended goon has ordered must be taken down.

Be careful how you arrange those discarded party hats this Xmas :-p

Actually can I just check the word “goon” for its offending index

[Duty281]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

Lineker has now found his voice (and keyboard), to defend the pro-Palestine protest that is set to go ahead on the 11th November.

Rejoice for Lineker, no longer voiceless.

[super_realist]

....Saying it can only come from Israel is completely ignoring the ineptitude of Gaza ordnance and Gaza terrorists and their willingness to use their own people as worthless pawns to escalate things.
It is a desperation to blame Israel rather than do their job properly.

What context is there ever to be happy with a terrorist attack?
What ever happend to editors?

It's not desperation; it's a mistake made in a rush. Like many other news outlets at the same time. In my opinion.

Re. context and the originating terrorism from Hamas, I'm afraid if all anyone can do is parrot the same old nonsense about ignoring context here, this problem is going nowhere. This has relevant context going back to 1947/48, and arguably earlier. Go read about Deir Yassin, Sa'sa', Lydda, Sabra, Shatila etc. Find out about the way the budding, and fully formed, IDF treated innocents, women and children and the arguably genocidal thinking behind it. Realise that the instigators/leaders of this sort of barbarity (i.e. Shamir, Begin, Sharon etc etc) actually became the leaders of the state now committing war crimes in Gaza - their politicians are, literally, bathed in blood and know no other way. Detonating a village mosque, for example, and killing ~60 of it's innocent occupants sheltering there isn't that different, in form or motivation, to reprisal murders committed by the Das Reich in Oradour-sur-Glane. The regime that committed the latter is universally and rightly condemned as evil, but that committing the former is strangely supported, no questions asked, by the US and UK, amongst others.
Context is essential here, but Israel is trying, as always, to shut any conversation of that down. As usual, they're weaponising the Holocaust etc as justification for their own awful behaviour, knowing that 'The West' has feelings of guilt over it and knowing they'll simply turn their eyes away from Israeli atrocities. Israel has been in breech of UN resolutions for decades re. a Palestinian state, and been allowed to get away with it, starting w/ UN Resolution 181 in 1947 for the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Enough this time.

To be clear on Hamas and Oct 7th, what they did was the very definition of terrorism and utterly abhorrent, but it's fine to condemn that unequivocally and still be aware that the context in which it occurred is real and relevant to the ongoing and future situation in Palestine/Israel.

Re. editorial oversight these days, I agree. I guess they got rid of a lot of the subs to save money.

Incidentally, I still don't have any link to any direct quote from some BBC Asia correspondent whom allegedly praised Hamas....

.
I gave you the quote. Why is it the BBC supposedly don't take sides but are clearly pro Palestinian?
It's funny you demand certain things of me, yet when I ask you for something you won't supply it.

You gave me what you said was the quote. I simply asked you to point me in the direction of the actual quote, so that I can make up my own mind. Disinformation, and all that. The fact you can't/won't speaks volumes.

Just Google it, you'll find multiple links.

[super_realist]

Maybe the quote was on a page that accidentally had a red, green and black backdrop which some professionally offended goon has ordered must be taken down.

Be careful how you arrange those discarded party hats this Xmas :-p

Actually can I just check the word “goon” for  its offending index

Absolutely pathetic of M&S apologising for that advert. I don't hear Italians moaning about it, so why are people offended on behalf of Palestinians for the same colours?

[Pal Joey]

No black in the Italian flag though is there?
You probably mean where are the moaning Afghans.

[super_realist]

No black in the Italian flag though is there?
You probably mean where are the moaning Afghans.

Was no black burning in the video either.
This was made in JULY FFS and anyone conflating colours of burning objects with Palestine based on a few arbitrary colours which incidentally are common to many Middle Eastern countries is laughable. It's like someone getting offended because a red white and blue object is burned.
Anyone getting offended about a Christmas advert is truly moronic.

[navyblueshorts]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

Lineker has now found his voice (and keyboard), to defend the pro-Palestine protest that is set to go ahead on the 11th November.

Rejoice for Lineker, no longer voiceless.

Not a problem, is it? As long as any such protest is respectful of the Remembrance Day stuff. I would have thought that a march that is basically asking for peace in that region is completely in-line with what Remembrance Day is/should be about.

[navyblueshorts]

....Saying it can only come from Israel is completely ignoring the ineptitude of Gaza ordnance and Gaza terrorists and their willingness to use their own people as worthless pawns to escalate things.
It is a desperation to blame Israel rather than do their job properly.

What context is there ever to be happy with a terrorist attack?
What ever happend to editors?

It's not desperation; it's a mistake made in a rush. Like many other news outlets at the same time. In my opinion.

Re. context and the originating terrorism from Hamas, I'm afraid if all anyone can do is parrot the same old nonsense about ignoring context here, this problem is going nowhere. This has relevant context going back to 1947/48, and arguably earlier. Go read about Deir Yassin, Sa'sa', Lydda, Sabra, Shatila etc. Find out about the way the budding, and fully formed, IDF treated innocents, women and children and the arguably genocidal thinking behind it. Realise that the instigators/leaders of this sort of barbarity (i.e. Shamir, Begin, Sharon etc etc) actually became the leaders of the state now committing war crimes in Gaza - their politicians are, literally, bathed in blood and know no other way. Detonating a village mosque, for example, and killing ~60 of it's innocent occupants sheltering there isn't that different, in form or motivation, to reprisal murders committed by the Das Reich in Oradour-sur-Glane. The regime that committed the latter is universally and rightly condemned as evil, but that committing the former is strangely supported, no questions asked, by the US and UK, amongst others.
Context is essential here, but Israel is trying, as always, to shut any conversation of that down. As usual, they're weaponising the Holocaust etc as justification for their own awful behaviour, knowing that 'The West' has feelings of guilt over it and knowing they'll simply turn their eyes away from Israeli atrocities. Israel has been in breech of UN resolutions for decades re. a Palestinian state, and been allowed to get away with it, starting w/ UN Resolution 181 in 1947 for the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Enough this time.

To be clear on Hamas and Oct 7th, what they did was the very definition of terrorism and utterly abhorrent, but it's fine to condemn that unequivocally and still be aware that the context in which it occurred is real and relevant to the ongoing and future situation in Palestine/Israel.

Re. editorial oversight these days, I agree. I guess they got rid of a lot of the subs to save money.

Incidentally, I still don't have any link to any direct quote from some BBC Asia correspondent whom allegedly praised Hamas....

.
I gave you the quote. Why is it the BBC supposedly don't take sides but are clearly pro Palestinian?
It's funny you demand certain things of me, yet when I ask you for something you won't supply it.

You gave me what you said was the quote. I simply asked you to point me in the direction of the actual quote, so that I can make up my own mind. Disinformation, and all that. The fact you can't/won't speaks volumes.

Just Google it, you'll find multiple links.

Thanks. Pretty instructive. No-one said anything as you describe it. Thought not.

[Duty281]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

Lineker has now found his voice (and keyboard), to defend the pro-Palestine protest that is set to go ahead on the 11th November.

Rejoice for Lineker, no longer voiceless.

Not a problem, is it? As long as any such protest is respectful of the Remembrance Day stuff. I would have thought that a march that is basically asking for peace in that region is completely in-line with what Remembrance Day is/should be about.

Which it won't be of course. Many of the people on this 'protest', as well as hating our country and its values, just hate Jews and the state of Israel.

The 'protests' today were absolutely terrifying for our Jewish population, and I feel great sympathy for them.

[navyblueshorts]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

Lineker has now found his voice (and keyboard), to defend the pro-Palestine protest that is set to go ahead on the 11th November.

Rejoice for Lineker, no longer voiceless.

Not a problem, is it? As long as any such protest is respectful of the Remembrance Day stuff. I would have thought that a march that is basically asking for peace in that region is completely in-line with what Remembrance Day is/should be about.

Which it won't be of course. Many of the people on this 'protest', as well as hating our country and its values, just hate Jews and the state of Israel.

The 'protests' today were absolutely terrifying for our Jewish population, and I feel great sympathy for them.

Nice that you to simply stereotype any such protests as not being suitably respectful in advance of them taking place.

Nice that you stereotype that many on such marches hate this country and its 'values'. Would that be the same values that had the British army simply stand aside and wave the Israeli thugs through with their ethnic cleansing operations in 1947-'49? Even when, until May 1948, we were still responsible for law and order? Those values?

I'm sympathetic to those that are naturally worried, but it's time this narrative is more balanced. The marches you refer to have nothing to do with what Hamas did on Oct 7th, and everything to do with being fed up with decades of persecution, displacement and murder by the state of Israel, which our so wonderful 'values' have insisted we aid and abet. The chilling censorship and sacking of anyone who raises a voice in support of the Palestinians, even when disavowing what Hamas did, is worrying, and something I thought you'd be concerned about. Clearly not.

[Duty281]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

Lineker has now found his voice (and keyboard), to defend the pro-Palestine protest that is set to go ahead on the 11th November.

Rejoice for Lineker, no longer voiceless.

Not a problem, is it? As long as any such protest is respectful of the Remembrance Day stuff. I would have thought that a march that is basically asking for peace in that region is completely in-line with what Remembrance Day is/should be about.

Which it won't be of course. Many of the people on this 'protest', as well as hating our country and its values, just hate Jews and the state of Israel.

The 'protests' today were absolutely terrifying for our Jewish population, and I feel great sympathy for them.

Nice that you to simply stereotype any such protests as not being suitably respectful in advance of them taking place.

Nice that you stereotype that many on such marches hate this country and its 'values'. Would that be the same values that had the British army simply stand aside and wave the Israeli thugs through with their ethnic cleansing operations in 1947-'49? Even when, until May 1948, we were still responsible for law and order? Those values?

I'm sympathetic to those that are naturally worried, but it's time this narrative is more balanced. The marches you refer to have nothing to do with what Hamas did on Oct 7th, and everything to do with being fed up with decades of persecution, displacement and murder by the state of Israel, which our so wonderful 'values' have insisted we aid and abet. The chilling censorship and sacking of anyone who raises a voice in support of the Palestinians, even when disavowing what Hamas did, is worrying, and something I thought you'd be concerned about. Clearly not.

There is no chilling censorship or sacking of everyone who is pro-Palestinian. Being pro-Palestinian is to be on trend. Hundreds of thousands went out at the weekend to be pro-Palestinian, across Europe, and were not victims of chilling censorship. Again, I wonder what media you're consuming to believe that anyone who voices such views is being clamped down upon.

It's also not in advance of protests taking place. These protests have already happened, it's just more are planned. And at these protests it's common to see homophobia, anti-semitism, calls for the destruction of the Israeli state, and celebration of the Hamas attacks. Y'know, the Hamas attacks which ended the ceasefire in the first place.

Strangely enough these same people never took to the street after the Islamic death cult of Hamas massacred thousands of innocents on the 7th October. Can't quite figure out why that is.

It's fair to say that not everyone at these protests hates Jews and hates the West. But it is fair to say that everyone who hates Jews and hates the West are at these protests.

I don't think they would be the same values as 1948, by the way. Our country has moved on and improved.

[JAS]

Our Country has moved on and improved
Oooh…hugely debatable, in 1948 we built things, we were in the midst of making progress as a society. our government was committed to making the country a better place, trying to ensure full employment….roll forward 75 years and we have a cabal of self serving cretins running us more intent in sowing division in society to distract people from noticing what a selfish, isolationist polarised, embittered parody of a nation we have become (because we voted for what is happening because we were apparently scared of the alternative…wtf!!) We ARE now going backwards, life expectancy is dropping disposable income (for the majority) is dropping. Controlling inflation is our governments number 1 target (and number 1 excuse for holding back ordinary people while the elite still fill their boots) and we can’t even manage what should have been an easy target to hit.

[JAS]

Ok to simplify my last statement, in 1948 we had a government that was trying to bring the nation together. In 2023 we have a government hellbent on dividing our nation irrevocably.

[Duty281]

Our Country has moved on and improved
Oooh…hugely debatable, in 1948 we built things, we were in the midst of making progress as a society. our government was committed to making the country a better place, trying to ensure full employment….roll forward 75 years and we have a cabal of self serving  cretins running us more intent in sowing division in society to distract people from noticing what a selfish, isolationist polarised, embittered parody of a nation we have become (because we voted for what is happening because we were apparently scared of the alternative…wtf!!) We ARE now going backwards, life expectancy is dropping disposable income (for the majority) is dropping. Controlling inflation is our governments number 1 target (and number 1 excuse for holding back ordinary people while the elite still fill their boots) and we can’t even manage what should have been an easy target to hit.

Not debatable in the slightest, don't be silly.

1948 - no equal pay for women, legal to discriminate against people on the basis of colour/religion/sexuality etc, homosexual rights practically nil, no minimum wage, less holiday pay, abortion fully criminalised, marital r*** was fine, and probably a million other things I haven't thought of but, because I live in a vastly better time, take for granted.

Governments of the past were the same self-serving lot that they are today. Probably more so because social mobility was even more restricted than it is now. It's just a simple nostalgia of the past, and less intrusive news media from that era, leads you to a different conclusion.

We're also not an isolationist or selfish nation. The billions we give out in foreign aid, the refugees we take in, the immigrants that come from all over the world, the 100+ international organisations we're part of, the huge amount of charity and volunteering work that goes on etc. Silly to say isolationist and selfish. Goodness knows what you'd say about Japan.

Life expectancy has gone down recently because of Covid. Apparently life expectancy was 65 in 1948, it's now nearly 79 (for males). Which actually isn't that much of a drop. It peaked at 79.87 in 2019 and is now 78.73. I'm not sure disposable income is dropping.

I agree the present government is incompetent.

'1948 we had a government that was trying to bring the nation together. In 2023 we have a government hellbent on dividing our nation irrevocably.'

Yeah, if you were a straight, white male in 1948, that statement probably makes sense. I doubt many women, homosexuals or people of colour thought that they were being brought together in 1948 as part of the fabric of the nation.

[JAS]

Yes ok you are correct in the specific things you mention. I was generalising as a nation. The fact that in the decades after 1948 the things you mention did happen and they were able to happen because collectively as a nation we wanted them to the post war trajectory was set and progress was made. It would be an interesting exercise to go through all those things you mention and see what flavour of government was responsible for bringing them in.

I do think that post war trajectory of continual progress has been lost and we are now seeing signs of regressing. I think you’ll find that life expectancy did start dipping before Covid, particularly in poorer households. Obviously the 70s had its issues but income inequality then was at its lowest ebb. Since then, income inequality has rocketed and THAT however much anyone tries to deny it is probably the most corrosive influence against a fair and cohesive society. A fair and cohesive anything (society, team etc) will always be greater than the sum of its individual parts, whereas a divided society is weak and vulnerable to other malevolent forces.

[super_realist]

Re life expectancy. I'm astonished it hasn't gone down considerably given diet, activity levels and mass obesity.

[Duty281]

Yes ok you are correct in the specific things you mention. I was generalising as a nation. The fact that in the decades after 1948 the things you mention did happen and they were able to happen because collectively as a nation we wanted them to the post war trajectory was set and progress was made. It would be an interesting exercise to go through all those things you mention and see what flavour of government was responsible for bringing them in.

I do think that post war trajectory of continual progress has been lost and we are now seeing signs of regressing. I think you’ll find that life expectancy did start dipping before Covid, particularly in poorer households. Obviously the 70s had its issues but income inequality then was at its lowest ebb. Since then, income inequality has rocketed and THAT however much anyone tries to deny it  is probably the most corrosive  influence against a fair and cohesive society. A fair and cohesive anything (society, team etc) will always be greater than the sum of its individual parts, whereas a divided society is weak and vulnerable to other malevolent forces.

The 70s had its issues? Yeah, just a bit, as the country collapsed in on itself with high inflation, three day working weeks, rubbish piling up in the streets, Labour needing to take out loans from the IMF and the Labour chancellor touring the world begging for handouts. Thankfully Thatcher reset the economic orthodoxy and propelled us to the (mostly) glory days of the 90s.

Income inequality has not rocketed, either. But even if it did, so what? It's better to have a country with high living standards and wide income inequality, than a society with low living standards and narrow income inequality. This is obviously the crux of the problem with socialist, and general left-wing, economics. It's more concerned with 'taxing the rich' and trying to make the rich worse off just so the poor can feel better about their situation, rather than actually trying to aid the worst off in society. Income inequality, may, for example have been wider in 1992 than it was in 1972, but which of those times was it better to live in?

Society will always be divided down some line. Even if it isn't economically-based, it'll just be something else. And it's impossible to have a fair society. There will always be inequality of something, unless you want to live in Thomas More's Utopia.

Life expectancy was almost always rising until 2019. It peaked in 2019, overall, but you may be right that it had dipped in the 2010s decade before Covid for poorer households. Interestingly I found white people in England had the second lowest life expectancy of ethnic groups in this country, only ahead of those who are mixed. That must be more of the white privilege I hear so much about.

[super_realist]

I'd argue declining life expectancy is only partially due to poverty, and more to do with laziness.

[navyblueshorts]

Gary Lineker et al strangely silent.

Lineker has now found his voice (and keyboard), to defend the pro-Palestine protest that is set to go ahead on the 11th November.

Rejoice for Lineker, no longer voiceless.

Not a problem, is it? As long as any such protest is respectful of the Remembrance Day stuff. I would have thought that a march that is basically asking for peace in that region is completely in-line with what Remembrance Day is/should be about.

Which it won't be of course. Many of the people on this 'protest', as well as hating our country and its values, just hate Jews and the state of Israel.

The 'protests' today were absolutely terrifying for our Jewish population, and I feel great sympathy for them.

Nice that you to simply stereotype any such protests as not being suitably respectful in advance of them taking place.

Nice that you stereotype that many on such marches hate this country and its 'values'. Would that be the same values that had the British army simply stand aside and wave the Israeli thugs through with their ethnic cleansing operations in 1947-'49? Even when, until May 1948, we were still responsible for law and order? Those values?

I'm sympathetic to those that are naturally worried, but it's time this narrative is more balanced. The marches you refer to have nothing to do with what Hamas did on Oct 7th, and everything to do with being fed up with decades of persecution, displacement and murder by the state of Israel, which our so wonderful 'values' have insisted we aid and abet. The chilling censorship and sacking of anyone who raises a voice in support of the Palestinians, even when disavowing what Hamas did, is worrying, and something I thought you'd be concerned about. Clearly not.

There is no chilling censorship or sacking of everyone who is pro-Palestinian. Being pro-Palestinian is to be on trend. Hundreds of thousands went out at the weekend to be pro-Palestinian, across Europe, and were not victims of chilling censorship. Again, I wonder what media you're consuming to believe that anyone who voices such views is being clamped down upon.

It's also not in advance of protests taking place. These protests have already happened, it's just more are planned. And at these protests it's common to see homophobia, anti-semitism, calls for the destruction of the Israeli state, and celebration of the Hamas attacks. Y'know, the Hamas attacks which ended the ceasefire in the first place.

Strangely enough these same people never took to the street after the Islamic death cult of Hamas massacred thousands of innocents on the 7th October. Can't quite figure out why that is.

It's fair to say that not everyone at these protests hates Jews and hates the West. But it is fair to say that everyone who hates Jews and hates the West are at these protests.

I don't think they would be the same values as 1948, by the way. Our country has moved on and improved.

Being pro-Palestinian may be seen to be 'on trend', but woe betide you if you excrete (on X), draw a cartoon, whatever, that is a bit pro-Palestinian or some pillock can suggest is anti-Semitic.

At large protests, there are always idiots, but it doesn't mean the vast rump are the so-called hate mob that our pig-ignorant Home Secretary rails that they are. It's typical of the Mail-reading part of the population to suggest that because, say, one idiot attacks a poppy seller, that a whole march is composed of idiots and therefore should rightfully be ignored.

You and I obviously disagree on much of this, which is fine. However, the situation in the middle east is not going to be sorted for the better until, and unless, there's some sort of honourable resolution of Israel's long-term treatment of the Palestinians, with "the West's" connivance.

[super_realist]

You can bet your arse that neither Gaza nor Israel will give the slightest toss about any "protests"
I'm not sure why there needs to be more than one, or how people have time to attend these things.
I do have to laugh at the groups like Gays for Palestine though. There's a real misunderstanding of the situation. If you're gay in that region, you won't be welcome in Gaza

It's also really petty for councillors and MP's resigning on Labours stance of not asking for a ceasefire.

[McLaren]

Super

Think the protests are aimed at politicians outside Israel who could call for a ceasefire.

[super_realist]

I'll say it again, you think Gaza or Israel would listen to a politician when neither side want a ceasefire?

Israel will never allow a ceasefire until hostages are released and Hamas are severely crippled and Hamas have said they'll continue with their reign of terror.

Funny how none of these protestors seem to care about Yemenis or Chinese Muslims. It's such a leftist cause to support Palestine when I bet a significant proportion are aware of what sea and what river they are chanting about.

[navyblueshorts]

I'll say it again, you think Gaza or Israel would listen to a politician when neither side want a ceasefire?

Israel will never allow a ceasefire until hostages are released and Hamas are severely crippled and Hamas have said they'll continue with their reign of terror.

Funny how none of these protestors seem to care about Yemenis or Chinese Muslims. It's such a leftist cause to support Palestine when I bet a significant proportion are aware of what sea and what river they are chanting about.

They might not listen to many, but they'd certainly listen to whomever is US President, for example. They might have listened to a UK PM in the past, but we're pretty much tinpot now, so can see why Netanyahu would ignore us. As long as Israel has US backing in the UN, nothing will change and the killings will just go on, and on.

Hamas atrocities aside, more should read works by people such as (the Israeli author/historian) Ilan Pappé etc for the broader historical context. I'd recommend Pappé's 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' as a decent enough staring point. This is, I hope, what Guterres meant when he said that "this did not happen in a vacuum" - why do you think Israel was incensed by that?

How do you know these protesters don't care about Yeminis or Uyghurs? Did you ask any of them? Why would they make a noise about those other situations when they're protesting about Israel's collective punishment of the Gaza civilians, on top of ~75 years (and ongoing) of dispossession, robbery, murder, being ignored by the UN, having their history wiped out etc? This isn't about other groups at this point in time.

[super_realist]

I'll say it again, you think Gaza or Israel would listen to a politician when neither side want a ceasefire?

Israel will never allow a ceasefire until hostages are released and Hamas are severely crippled and Hamas have said they'll continue with their reign of terror.

Funny how none of these protestors seem to care about Yemenis or Chinese Muslims. It's such a leftist cause to support Palestine when I bet a significant proportion are aware of what sea and what river they are chanting about.

They might not listen to many, but they'd certainly listen to whomever is US President, for example. They might have listened to a UK PM in the past, but we're pretty much tinpot now, so can see why Netanyahu would ignore us. As long as Israel has US backing in the UN, nothing will change and the killings will just go on, and on.

Hamas atrocities aside, more should read works by people such as (the Israeli author/historian) Ilan Pappé etc for the broader historical context. I'd recommend Pappé's 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' as a decent enough staring point. This is, I hope, what Guterres meant when he said that "this did not happen in a vacuum" - why do you think Israel was incensed by that?

How do you know these protesters don't care about Yeminis or Uyghurs? Did you ask any of them? Why would they make a noise about those other situations when they're protesting about Israel's collective punishment of the Gaza civilians, on top of ~75 years (and ongoing) of dispossession, robbery, murder, being ignored by the UN, having their history wiped out etc? This isn't about other groups at this point in time.

How do I know? Where are the protests if they do? Have you ever seen any? Maybe if Coogan et all widened their arc a bit tje luvvies might get on board.
You're in danger of sounding like that lunatic ex Labour MP Chris Williamson, you can't rationalise Hamas attacks on innocent civilians as payback for "75 years".

[JAS]

Is it just me or is Braverman gobbing off like a juvenile delinquent deliberately trying to get expelled from school?

[navyblueshorts]

...You're in danger of sounding like that lunatic ex Labour MP Chris Williamson, you can't rationalise Hamas attacks on innocent civilians as payback for "75 years".

Same old, same old. I'll say again for the hard of hearing/understanding - you cannot isolate the Hamas brutality from the wider situation in Israel/Palestine. You can exactly rationalise what Hamas did on that basis. Justify? No, but ignoring/failing to understand the background is just putting your head in the sand. The situation won't change unless that's fixed and the Palestinian grievances are properly addressed.

[navyblueshorts]

Is it just me or is Braverman gobbing off like a juvenile delinquent deliberately trying to get expelled from school?

No; it's not just you. She's got to be the most ignorant, dumb as rocks cretin to have ever held such an important office of State. Sunak should sack her, but I doubt he's got the backbone to do so.

[JAS]

Is it just me or is Braverman gobbing off like a juvenile delinquent deliberately trying to get expelled from school?

No; it's not just you. She's got to be the most ignorant, dumb as rocks cretin to have ever held such an important office of State. Sunak should sack her, but I doubt he's got the backbone to do so.

I think she's doing a great job as an electoral asset...for a dysfunctional Labour party that's afraid to stand up and SHOUT for what it's supposed to believe in.

It must feel like deep into the back 9 in matchplay you're dormie up and your opponent is in a deep bunker...and they pull a 3 wood for a shot at the green!!

I would hazard a guess that even the political pendulum of your average police officer has probably shifted a notch or 2 left after her recent ramblings.

Please don't sack her Rishi, she's the gift that keeps on giving

[navyblueshorts]

Is it just me or is Braverman gobbing off like a juvenile delinquent deliberately trying to get expelled from school?

No; it's not just you. She's got to be the most ignorant, dumb as rocks cretin to have ever held such an important office of State. Sunak should sack her, but I doubt he's got the backbone to do so.

I think she's doing a great job as an electoral asset...for a dysfunctional Labour party that's afraid to stand up  and SHOUT for what it's supposed to believe in.

It must feel like deep into the back 9 in matchplay you're dormie up and your opponent is in a deep bunker...and they pull a 3 wood for a shot at the green!!

I would hazard a guess that even the political pendulum of your average police officer has probably shifted a notch or 2 left after her recent ramblings.

Please don't sack her Rishi, she's the gift that keeps on giving

Yeah. I expect Labour would rather she hangs around until the inevitable loss in the next GM, whenever that comes around.

Re. a 3-wood from a deep trap, it's a good job they don't have a Ballesteros anywhere in their ranks.

[Sponsored content]