Kicking off in Israel

[Tichtheid]

Those first responses were entirely predictable.

The point I am making has a few layers, one of which is the hypocrisy, where free speech is only allowed if it is something we agree with, which is really not free speech at all.
Any views which do not incite violence or discrimination are allowed under free speech, no matter how much you dislike them. With the freedom comes responsibility of course, ie you are not free to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema.

Another point is linked, someone like Morgan, more tv personality than journalist, should not be allowed to hound someone out of any political party, which is what has happened here. There was no investigation which turned up evidence which was not previously known, it's just that right now you dare not resist the consensus opinion. If Starmer didn't chuck Corbyn out then he was going to face front pages accusing him of siding with those beheading babies. Just like we get here.

[Tichtheid]

As far as I understand it, this is the oder of events of something that happened this week, Piers Morgan, someone who has portrayed himself as a beacon in the battle for free speech, he interviewed Jeremy Corbyn for a pod cast in which he repeatedly asked Corbyn to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Corbyn apparently avoided the question several times.

I saw in the Guardian earlier that Starmer was saying Corbyn's days as a Labour MP were over, he'd never be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate again.

No matter what you think of Corbyn, he has not donned a bandanna and picked up an AK47, he has not planted any bombs nor, as far as I'm aware, has he condoned the atrocities on 7th of October or incited armed aggression of any sort.

From his wiki page, the people of his constituency have elected him at every opportunity since 1983.

These bastions of free speech have denied the people of the constituency of Islington North the opportunity to vote for the same candidate they have shown faith in for 40 years. I'm not asking anyone to like Corbyn and I'm certainly not asking anyone to agree with him, but shouldn't his constituents decide if he should represent them or not? - that is the argument I've heard the likes of Rees-Mogg trot out when asked if he should step down after being found out for one thing and another.

My recollection of Corbyn's association with Hamas and other groups is that he has always advocated dialogue, you know, just like Thatcher did in private with groups in Northern Ireland whilst proscribing them in public.

Starmer has tried very, very hard to clamp down on even the appearance of anti-semitism given how the allegations of it threatened the party under Corbyn. Refusing to brand Hamas a terrorist organisation was always going to create a shitstorm and to have it centred on the man who, rightly or wrongly, was deemed to be at the heart of Labour's apparent anti-semitism problem at the current moment in time is deeply unhelpful to Labour.

It could also be reaching the end of one's tether over Corbyn's needless and rather naive interjections into foreign policy from the back benches. He came out with some incredibly tone deaf, unrealistic peacenik rhetoric around the war in Ukraine not so long ago. And of course the right wing press lapped it up as they will this. There is not enough prominent left wing media to counterract what the right will do with this and the sorts of people Labour need to maintain their healthy poll lead are Corbyn sceptics at the best of times.

The people of Islington North would be denied the chance to vote for Corbyn as a Labour candidate, it's up to him whether he might choose to stand as an independent and see whether they were voting for man or rosette.

I agree act Corbyn is naive, he's not a heavyweight political player, Morgan knew what he was doing. Another layer to my point is that I think that undermines democracy - Thatcher was never portrayed as a terrorist sympathiser, let alone ousted for it, but she probably had more engagement than Corbyn ever had - albeit at arm's length with deniability etc

[Calculon]

Your point is asinine, political parties aren't free speech absolutist. If someone claims the Labour party is, then yes, that's bollocks, so what. Corbyn didn't have to go on Piers's show, he's been digging his own grave for many years now.
The hard realities of being iln government meant Thatcher had to deal with some very unsavoury people, maybe if she described the PIRA as her friends she would have been labeled as a terrorists sympathizer

[Tichtheid]

Your point is asinine, political parties aren't free speech absolutist. If someone claims the Labour party is, then yes, that's bollocks, so what. Corbyn didn't have to go on Piers's show, he's been digging his own grave for many years now

He didn't answer a question from a notoriously arrogant man who was trying to force him to say something he didn't want to say. He wasn't actively saying anything offensive or unlawful, he just refused to agree with a point that was being foisted on him in an aggressive manner. There was probably a lot of ego involved as one refused the others' point, but I've watched Morgan for years refuse to let his interviewee answer a question in any way that he doesn't like and then claim victory

You think that is enough to sack him off the constituency he has represented for 40 years.

There have been some real heavyweight political journalists, Morgan is not one of them

[Tichtheid]

The hard realities of being iln government meant Thatcher had to deal with some very unsavoury people, maybe if she described the PIRA as her friends she would have been labeled as a terrorists sympathizer

That edit wasn't in the post I replied to.

Corbyn has advocated dealing with people in order to gain peace, Thatcher's actions were to negotiate with groups in private, no matter what her words were in public

for the record

Jeremy Corbyn has told MPs investigating accusations of antisemitism in the Labour party that he regrets once calling members of Hamas and Hezbollah “friends”.

Giving evidence at the home affairs select committee on Monday, the Labour leader said that he had used the phrase to describe the militant groups during a meeting in parliament in 2009.

“The language I used at that meeting was actually here in parliament and it was about encouraging the meeting to go ahead, encouraging there to be a discussion about the peace process,” he said.

Asked whether he still regarded Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends”, the Labour leader said: “No. It was inclusive language I used which with hindsight I would rather not have used. I regret using those words, of course.”

This is all getting away from the point about whether or not an MP should be hounded out of standing for a party when they haven't done anything illegal, the "crime" seems to be having opinions that upset right wingers

[Margin__Walker]

Corbyn can be the MP for the good people of Islington for as long as they'll have him. As an independent. Labour are under no obligation to have him as their representative thankfully

[Sandstorm]

Your point is asinine, political parties aren't free speech absolutist. If someone claims the Labour party is, then yes, that's bollocks, so what. Corbyn didn't have to go on Piers's show, he's been digging his own grave for many years now

He didn't answer a question from a notoriously arrogant man who was trying to force him to say something he didn't want to say. He wasn't actively saying anything offensive or unlawful, he just refused to agree with a point that was being foisted on him in an aggressive manner. There was probably a lot of ego involved as one refused the others' point, but I've watched Morgan for years refuse to let his interviewee answer a question in any way that he doesn't like and then claim victory

You think that is enough to sack him off the constituency he has represented for 40 years.

There have been some real heavyweight political journalists, Morgan is not one of them

So this is actually about Morgan?

[Line6 HXFX]

Morgan thinks this all came about the day of the hamas attacks. That nothing happenned before. That everything else that occurred over 70 odd years of conflict, illegal occupation, murder, dispossession, provocation and apartheid is "whataboutery".




So yes its about Morgan, and other journo idiots who are blind to the past, and want to contextualise it as black and white.

[Tichtheid]

Your point is asinine, political parties aren't free speech absolutist. If someone claims the Labour party is, then yes, that's bollocks, so what. Corbyn didn't have to go on Piers's show, he's been digging his own grave for many years now

He didn't answer a question from a notoriously arrogant man who was trying to force him to say something he didn't want to say. He wasn't actively saying anything offensive or unlawful, he just refused to agree with a point that was being foisted on him in an aggressive manner. There was probably a lot of ego involved as one refused the others' point, but I've watched Morgan for years refuse to let his interviewee answer a question in any way that he doesn't like and then claim victory

You think that is enough to sack him off the constituency he has represented for 40 years.

There have been some real heavyweight political journalists, Morgan is not one of them

So this is actually about Morgan?

He is one of many parts to this, but he does represent a refusal to allow nuance into any discussion, you’re either 100% with us or you are 100% against us. This thread has been populated with this opinion from the start.

It’s facile and, imo, deliberately so.

[sefton]

Corbyn was never going to be standing as a Labour candidate anyway as he had the whip withdrawn when he refused to accept the independent investigation into antisemitism.

[Raggs]

Corbyn has written a foreword to an anti-Semitic book calling it brilliant. He refused to recognise a clearly anti-Semitic mural as anti-Semitic until he was basically forced to. He's called Hezbollah and Hamas friends (and not the bullshit excuse he recently gave to times radio). He refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organisation. He's been on presstv payroll.

He's clearly anti-Semitic. He has free speech, and continues to use it. Labour doesn't have to have anyone they don't want, and aren't preventing him from being an MP, as you clearly know.

So what's your actual point?

[sockwithaticket]

He didn't answer a question from a notoriously arrogant man who was trying to force him to say something he didn't want to say. He wasn't actively saying anything offensive or unlawful, he just refused to agree with a point that was being foisted on him in an aggressive manner. There was probably a lot of ego involved as one refused the others' point, but I've watched Morgan for years refuse to let his interviewee answer a question in any way that he doesn't like and then claim victory

You think that is enough to sack him off the constituency he has represented for 40 years.

There have been some real heavyweight political journalists, Morgan is not one of them

So this is actually about Morgan?

He is one of many parts to this, but he does represent a refusal to allow nuance into any discussion, you’re either 100% with us or you are 100% against us. This thread has been populated with this opinion from the start.

It’s facile and, imo, deliberately so.

Sadly that horse has long since bolted. One of the left's greatest problems with the electorate is not being able to condense things down to catchy slogans. There's a reason Take Back Control and Get Brexit Done, were so successful.

If your view requires more context than a headline or 10 second clip allows, it can and will be misrepresented.

[C69]

So this is actually about Morgan?

He is one of many parts to this, but he does represent a refusal to allow nuance into any discussion, you’re either 100% with us or you are 100% against us. This thread has been populated with this opinion from the start.

It’s facile and, imo, deliberately so.

Sadly that horse has long since bolted. One of the left's greatest problems with the electorate is not being able to condense things down to catchy slogans. There's a reason Take Back Control and Get Brexit Done, were so successful.

If your view requires more context than a headline or 10 second clip allows, it can and will be misrepresented.

Sorry but that is a gross generalisation tbh. To even suggest that the left is a homogeneous unified group would be ridiculous. Corbyn and his trendy lefty metropolitan elite are hated by large swathes of the left.
Slogans from the right like MAGA in the USA are quite facile and ridiculous.
A rallying call to the base of society. Get Brexit done for instance wasn't a left right thing. Some of the most leftist constituencies in the UK voted for Brexit FFS.

[Tichtheid]

So this is actually about Morgan?

He is one of many parts to this, but he does represent a refusal to allow nuance into any discussion, you’re either 100% with us or you are 100% against us. This thread has been populated with this opinion from the start.

It’s facile and, imo, deliberately so.

Sadly that horse has long since bolted. One of the left's greatest problems with the electorate is not being able to condense things down to catchy slogans. There's a reason Take Back Control and Get Brexit Done, were so successful.

If your view requires more context than a headline or 10 second clip allows, it can and will be misrepresented.

Yeah, I think you’re right.

The article in the Tribune where Corbyn describes Hamas as a terrorist group is probably too much for here because he compares some of the actions of the IDF in Gazza as also targeting civilians and so also acts of terror

[C69]

He is one of many parts to this, but he does represent a refusal to allow nuance into any discussion, you’re either 100% with us or you are 100% against us. This thread has been populated with this opinion from the start.

It’s facile and, imo, deliberately so.

Sadly that horse has long since bolted. One of the left's greatest problems with the electorate is not being able to condense things down to catchy slogans. There's a reason Take Back Control and Get Brexit Done, were so successful.

If your view requires more context than a headline or 10 second clip allows, it can and will be misrepresented.

Yeah, I think you’re right.

The article in the Tribune where Corbyn describes Hamas as a terrorist group is probably too much for here because he compares some of the actions of the IDF in Gazza as also targeting civilians and so also acts of terror

Could you post a link to that article.

Edit
Just read it.

[sockwithaticket]

He is one of many parts to this, but he does represent a refusal to allow nuance into any discussion, you’re either 100% with us or you are 100% against us. This thread has been populated with this opinion from the start.

It’s facile and, imo, deliberately so.

Sadly that horse has long since bolted. One of the left's greatest problems with the electorate is not being able to condense things down to catchy slogans. There's a reason Take Back Control and Get Brexit Done, were so successful.

If your view requires more context than a headline or 10 second clip allows, it can and will be misrepresented.

Sorry but that is a gross generalisation tbh. To even suggest that the left is a homogeneous unified group would be ridiculous. Corbyn and his trendy lefty metropolitan elite are hated by large swathes of the left.
Slogans from the right like MAGA in the USA are quite facile and ridiculous.
A rallying call to the base of society. Get Brexit done for instance wasn't a left right thing. Some of the most leftist constituencies in the UK voted for Brexit FFS.

Of coure it's a generalisation. My experience in lefty spaces is that we often need a lot of words to fully articulate a view because we try to account for more facets of a situation and actively seek a fuller picture. Righties are more likely to view things in black and white terms and express themselves more simplistically as a result.

[shaggy]

Sadly that horse has long since bolted. One of the left's greatest problems with the electorate is not being able to condense things down to catchy slogans. There's a reason Take Back Control and Get Brexit Done, were so successful.

If your view requires more context than a headline or 10 second clip allows, it can and will be misrepresented.

Sorry but that is a gross generalisation tbh. To even suggest that the left is a homogeneous unified group would be ridiculous. Corbyn and his trendy lefty metropolitan elite are hated by large swathes of the left.
Slogans from the right like MAGA in the USA are quite facile and ridiculous.
A rallying call to the base of society. Get Brexit done for instance wasn't a left right thing. Some of the most leftist constituencies in the UK voted for Brexit FFS.

Of coure it's a generalisation. My experience in lefty spaces is that we often need a lot of words to fully articulate a view because we try to account for more facets of a situation and actively seek a fuller picture. Righties are more likely to view things in black and white terms and express themselves more simplistically as a result.

Who are you baiting with that?

[Line6 HXFX]

Are the Jews just a nation of narcissists though? They shit the bed in the UK by deciding that not everyone loves them in the Labour Party, so proceeded to destroy it and give us 5 years of Boris instead (of course he didn't last that long).

Can you imagine the fucking uproar if the welsh decided to destroy the entire labour project, in 1995..because Mo Molem and Tony Blair disliked us (they did, "fuck the Welsh" was a favoured repost).

Corbyn didn't even have to say that to the jews, for them to become massively hysterical.


Sometimes you just have to laugh at the accusation of anti semitism and realise the people saying it are wankers.

Not dismiss it all the time, obviously..but you know, we are a society where wankers are in abundance.

[Margin__Walker]

There's very little complex about Corbyn

Of course he's comparing Hamas to the IDF when backed into a corner. He's from a distinct anti western/Israel branch of the left. And absolutely anti semantic in his case. When Russia, Assad, Hamas etc do something wrong he abhors all violence, but will dig his heels in heroically rather than call it out in isolation. Where as he's swift and very specific when it comes to NATO, Israel etc.

Refusing to call Hamas terrorists when pushed (even by a prick like Morgan), is such a silly hill to die on.

[sockwithaticket]

Sorry but that is a gross generalisation tbh. To even suggest that the left is a homogeneous unified group would be ridiculous. Corbyn and his trendy lefty metropolitan elite are hated by large swathes of the left.
Slogans from the right like MAGA in the USA are quite facile and ridiculous.
A rallying call to the base of society. Get Brexit done for instance wasn't a left right thing. Some of the most leftist constituencies in the UK voted for Brexit FFS.

Of coure it's a generalisation. My experience in lefty spaces is that we often need a lot of words to fully articulate a view because we try to account for more facets of a situation and actively seek a fuller picture. Righties are more likely to view things in black and white terms and express themselves more simplistically as a result.

Who are you baiting with that?

You apparently.

[shaggy]

Of coure it's a generalisation. My experience in lefty spaces is that we often need a lot of words to fully articulate a view because we try to account for more facets of a situation and actively seek a fuller picture. Righties are more likely to view things in black and white terms and express themselves more simplistically as a result.

Who are you baiting with that?

You apparently.

No, seriously. Was it a general statement or a response to someone? It was kind of a tangent from the YMX’s exchange.

[sockwithaticket]

Who are you baiting with that?

You apparently.

No, seriously. Was it a general statement or a response to someone? It was kind of a tangent from the YMX’s exchange.

You can trace the responses back in this thread. Ticht was lamenting a lack of nuance in political discourse, I've been exagerating the longer it goes on, but I do think there's a nugget in there that lefties often want to state a manifesto where the right will distill something down to a catchy slogan. YMX wasn't part of it.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Your point is asinine, political parties aren't free speech absolutist. If someone claims the Labour party is, then yes, that's bollocks, so what. Corbyn didn't have to go on Piers's show, he's been digging his own grave for many years now

He didn't answer a question from a notoriously arrogant man who was trying to force him to say something he didn't want to say. He wasn't actively saying anything offensive or unlawful, he just refused to agree with a point that was being foisted on him in an aggressive manner. There was probably a lot of ego involved as one refused the others' point, but I've watched Morgan for years refuse to let his interviewee answer a question in any way that he doesn't like and then claim victory

You think that is enough to sack him off the constituency he has represented for 40 years.

There have been some real heavyweight political journalists, Morgan is not one of them

May I suggest don't watch Morgan

[Calculon]

Corbyn has written a foreword to an anti-Semitic book calling it brilliant. He refused to recognise a clearly anti-Semitic mural as anti-Semitic until he was basically forced to. He's called Hezbollah and Hamas friends (and not the bullshit excuse he recently gave to times radio). He refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organisation. He's been on presstv payroll.

He's clearly anti-Semitic. He has free speech, and continues to use it. Labour doesn't have to have anyone they don't want, and aren't preventing him from being an MP, as you clearly know.

So what's your actual point?

His point is that Corbyn isn't actually that bad and if you disagree it means you are overly emotional and lack a nuanced understanding of the situation. Straight out of the Guy smiley playbook. Oh, also that his verbose posts are multilayered

[C69]

Are the Jews just a nation of narcissists though? They shit the bed in the UK by deciding that not everyone loves them in the Labour Party, so proceeded to destroy it and give us 5 years of Boris instead (of course he didn't last that long).

Can you imagine the fucking uproar if the welsh decided to destroy the entire labour project, in 1995..because Mo Molem and Tony Blair disliked us (they did, "fuck the Welsh" was a favoured repost).

Corbyn didn't even have to say that to the jews, for them to become massively hysterical.


Sometimes you just have to laugh at the accusation of anti semitism and realise the people saying it are wankers.

Not dismiss it all the time, obviously..but you know, we are a society where wankers are in abundance.

Israel is the nation not Jews

[Hugo]

He didn't answer a question from a notoriously arrogant man who was trying to force him to say something he didn't want to say. He wasn't actively saying anything offensive or unlawful, he just refused to agree with a point that was being foisted on him in an aggressive manner. There was probably a lot of ego involved as one refused the others' point, but I've watched Morgan for years refuse to let his interviewee answer a question in any way that he doesn't like and then claim victory

You think that is enough to sack him off the constituency he has represented for 40 years.

There have been some real heavyweight political journalists, Morgan is not one of them

So this is actually about Morgan?

He is one of many parts to this, but he does represent a refusal to allow nuance into any discussion, you’re either 100% with us or you are 100% against us. This thread has been populated with this opinion from the start.

It’s facile and, imo, deliberately so.

You've a great point here. That Morgan is an adjudicator/arbiter of extraordinarily complicated issues such as these is wrong. He's a tabloid hack.

I bet you he doesn't do an ounce of research on most of what he opines about. I get no sense that he is intellectually curious, thoughtful or inquisitive he's just a total blowhard.

[Raggs]

Morgan is a complete arse. But that doesn't change Corbyn either.

I do dislike it when people I don't like have similar opinions to me on particular subjects.

[Ymx]

Corbyn has written a foreword to an anti-Semitic book calling it brilliant. He refused to recognise a clearly anti-Semitic mural as anti-Semitic until he was basically forced to. He's called Hezbollah and Hamas friends (and not the bullshit excuse he recently gave to times radio). He refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organisation. He's been on presstv payroll.

He's clearly anti-Semitic. He has free speech, and continues to use it. Labour doesn't have to have anyone they don't want, and aren't preventing him from being an MP, as you clearly know.

So what's your actual point?

His point is that Corbyn isn't actually that bad and if you disagree it means you are overly emotional and lack a nuanced understanding of the situation. Straight out of the Guy smiley playbook. Oh, also that his verbose posts are multilayered

[Tichtheid]

Corbyn has written a foreword to an anti-Semitic book calling it brilliant. He refused to recognise a clearly anti-Semitic mural as anti-Semitic until he was basically forced to. He's called Hezbollah and Hamas friends (and not the bullshit excuse he recently gave to times radio). He refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organisation. He's been on presstv payroll.

He's clearly anti-Semitic. He has free speech, and continues to use it. Labour doesn't have to have anyone they don't want, and aren't preventing him from being an MP, as you clearly know.

So what's your actual point?

His point is that Corbyn isn't actually that bad and if you disagree it means you are overly emotional and lack a nuanced understanding of the situation. Straight out of the Guy smiley playbook. Oh, also that his verbose posts are multilayered

Your first point is so wrong it's almost funny, that's the thing about presumption without asking, you're just guessing wildly. You're closer with your second point about lacking a nuanced understanding of a situation. I don't know about Guy Smiley but he sounds like a good guy. Using the word verbose in this context pretty much proves one of my points, it's not a simple "X good ", "Y bad" and anyone trying to say otherwise is a moron.

But you got YMX laughing like an idiot.

[Tichtheid]

Your point is asinine, political parties aren't free speech absolutist. If someone claims the Labour party is, then yes, that's bollocks, so what. Corbyn didn't have to go on Piers's show, he's been digging his own grave for many years now

He didn't answer a question from a notoriously arrogant man who was trying to force him to say something he didn't want to say. He wasn't actively saying anything offensive or unlawful, he just refused to agree with a point that was being foisted on him in an aggressive manner. There was probably a lot of ego involved as one refused the others' point, but I've watched Morgan for years refuse to let his interviewee answer a question in any way that he doesn't like and then claim victory

You think that is enough to sack him off the constituency he has represented for 40 years.

There have been some real heavyweight political journalists, Morgan is not one of them

May I suggest don't watch Morgan

I feel I have to sometimes, for the same reason I read the Telegraph and Times, and even sometimes hold my nose and look up the Mail site and that of the Express too, making sure to wipe my feet when I close the page.
If you spend your time talking out detail among yourselves you end up with no understanding of what you are up against and how to defeat them, and hopefully win over the moderates at the same time.

I learned a lot from economic right wingers on the old Guardian Comment is Free section, I didn't agree with them but I got a fair understanding of where they were coming from. That was a good place for a real exchange of views a good few years ago, it's shame it's not what it was.

[Guy Smiley]

The point Tichtheid is making isn’t that complex and it’s a good point.

[Enzedder]

Re the report "Can we please put an end to this childish line of "you're not pro Israel therefore you're anti-Semitic"?"

yes, we can put a stop to that if aimed at a poster - but posts showing Corbyn with actions and words that could be shown as being anti-Semitic, are not breaking any rules here.

If someone here were accused of that, we could take action unless posts showed the post as being factually correct.

Otherwise, I am happy to let people debate Corbyn or not.

[Margin__Walker]

Re the report "Can we please put an end to this childish line of "you're not pro Israel therefore you're anti-Semitic"?"

yes, we can put a stop to that if aimed at a poster - but posts showing Corbyn with actions and words that could be shown as being anti-Semitic, are not breaking any rules here.

If someone here were accused of that, we could take action unless posts showed the post as being factually correct.

Otherwise, I am happy to let people debate Corbyn or not.

Nice. Did anyone actually suggest that?

It's clearly possible to criticise Israel without Corbyn's history when it comes to Jews, Jewish tropes and being a fan of Jew haters. Plenty of people do it all the time.

Now who's lacking nuance?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

He didn't answer a question from a notoriously arrogant man who was trying to force him to say something he didn't want to say. He wasn't actively saying anything offensive or unlawful, he just refused to agree with a point that was being foisted on him in an aggressive manner. There was probably a lot of ego involved as one refused the others' point, but I've watched Morgan for years refuse to let his interviewee answer a question in any way that he doesn't like and then claim victory

You think that is enough to sack him off the constituency he has represented for 40 years.

There have been some real heavyweight political journalists, Morgan is not one of them

May I suggest don't watch Morgan

I feel I have to sometimes, for the same reason I read the Telegraph and Times, and even sometimes hold my nose and look up the Mail site and that of the Express too, making sure to wipe my feet when I close the page.
If you spend your time talking out detail among yourselves you end up with no understanding of what you are up against and how to defeat them, and hopefully win over the moderates at the same time.

I learned a lot from economic right wingers on the old Guardian Comment is Free section, I didn't agree with them but I got a fair understanding of where they were coming from. That was a good place for a real exchange of views a good few years ago, it's shame it's not what it was.

"you" are not going to defeat "them"

if for instance you never read about, heard about or thought about Israel ever again it would make no difference to the situation. it's an extremely odd thing so many of us make pivotal decision on International relations that matter not in the slightest other than for our regard to ourselves

I will read a little of the Telegraph from time to time, I wouldn't touch Morgan, the Express or the Mail with a very long pole. The Times, well that's actually the paper I read so that one I do read, and I will read a little of the Guardian too

[sockwithaticket]

May I suggest don't watch Morgan

I feel I have to sometimes, for the same reason I read the Telegraph and Times, and even sometimes hold my nose and look up the Mail site and that of the Express too, making sure to wipe my feet when I close the page.
If you spend your time talking out detail among yourselves you end up with no understanding of what you are up against and how to defeat them, and hopefully win over the moderates at the same time.

I learned a lot from economic right wingers on the old Guardian Comment is Free section, I didn't agree with them but I got a fair understanding of where they were coming from. That was a good place for a real exchange of views a good few years ago, it's shame it's not what it was.

"you" are not going to defeat "them"

if for instance you never read about, heard about or thought about Israel ever again it would make no difference to the situation. it's an extremely odd thing so many of us make pivotal decision on International relations that matter not in the slightest other than for our regard to ourselves

I will read a little of the Telegraph from time to time, I wouldn't touch Morgan, the Express or the Mail with a very long pole. The Times, well that's actually the paper I read so that one I do read, and I will read a little of the Guardian too

To that point:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ir-starmer

Hundreds of people marched through Keir Starmer’s constituency and protested outside his Camden office on Saturday over the Labour leader’s failure to call for a ceasefire, while others turned up outside the home of at least one MP on Saturday.

I'm really struggling to see the purpose of haranguing members of the parliamentary Labour party so much over this conflict.

Let's say they get Starmer to be more condemnatory than he has been and to back their calls for a ceasefire rather than humanitarian pauses, so what? The government's position is still anti-ceasefire. Even if Starmer could get enough votes from Tory rebels plus every other party to push forward a parliamentary vote on a ceasefire, that will produce what? As far as I can see Israel has very little reason to give a solitary fuck about what the politicians of the UK think. The only nation they might listen to is the US and the Biden administration's support for Israel will not be swayed by a vote in the House of Commons. So what is all this for?

[Tichtheid]

May I suggest don't watch Morgan

I feel I have to sometimes, for the same reason I read the Telegraph and Times, and even sometimes hold my nose and look up the Mail site and that of the Express too, making sure to wipe my feet when I close the page.
If you spend your time talking out detail among yourselves you end up with no understanding of what you are up against and how to defeat them, and hopefully win over the moderates at the same time.

I learned a lot from economic right wingers on the old Guardian Comment is Free section, I didn't agree with them but I got a fair understanding of where they were coming from. That was a good place for a real exchange of views a good few years ago, it's shame it's not what it was.

"you" are not going to defeat "them"

if for instance you never read about, heard about or thought about Israel ever again it would make no difference to the situation. it's an extremely odd thing so many of us make pivotal decision on International relations that matter not in the slightest other than for our regard to ourselves

I will read a little of the Telegraph from time to time, I wouldn't touch Morgan, the Express or the Mail with a very long pole. The Times, well that's actually the paper I read so that one I do read, and I will read a little of the Guardian too

Ok, I take responsibility for my brevity there. What I was referring to in that point was the Left v Right viewpoint, nothing to do with Israel. I believe that health, education, utilities, travel infrastructure, defence and other security (police, borders etc) should be funded for the benefit of everyone, there is no real profit to be made in those areas and should not be subject to rapacious market forces where the aim is to reward shareholders, rather than the quality of service being the end goal in of itself.

OTOH, make all the widgets you can and sell them in the private sector, fill your boots, I'm all for it, just pay your taxes.

The ones who seek to make a profit out of the health service or education etc, that is the "they" or "them" I was referring to. I know there are some that will never accept that point of view, hence my admittedly adversarial language. I'd rather win them over, I really would.

[Uncle fester]

Meanwhile in the West Bank.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67463162

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I feel I have to sometimes, for the same reason I read the Telegraph and Times, and even sometimes hold my nose and look up the Mail site and that of the Express too, making sure to wipe my feet when I close the page.
If you spend your time talking out detail among yourselves you end up with no understanding of what you are up against and how to defeat them, and hopefully win over the moderates at the same time.

I learned a lot from economic right wingers on the old Guardian Comment is Free section, I didn't agree with them but I got a fair understanding of where they were coming from. That was a good place for a real exchange of views a good few years ago, it's shame it's not what it was.

"you" are not going to defeat "them"

if for instance you never read about, heard about or thought about Israel ever again it would make no difference to the situation. it's an extremely odd thing so many of us make pivotal decision on International relations that matter not in the slightest other than for our regard to ourselves

I will read a little of the Telegraph from time to time, I wouldn't touch Morgan, the Express or the Mail with a very long pole. The Times, well that's actually the paper I read so that one I do read, and I will read a little of the Guardian too

To that point:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ir-starmer

Hundreds of people marched through Keir Starmer’s constituency and protested outside his Camden office on Saturday over the Labour leader’s failure to call for a ceasefire, while others turned up outside the home of at least one MP on Saturday.

I'm really struggling to see the purpose of haranguing members of the parliamentary Labour party so much over this conflict.

Let's say they get Starmer to be more condemnatory than he has been and to back their calls for a ceasefire rather than humanitarian pauses, so what? The government's position is still anti-ceasefire. Even if Starmer could get enough votes from Tory rebels plus every other party to push forward a parliamentary vote on a ceasefire, that will produce what? As far as I can see Israel has very little reason to give a solitary fuck about what the politicians of the UK think. The only nation they might listen to is the US and the Biden administration's support for Israel will not be swayed by a vote in the House of Commons. So what is all this for?

Why people are so vexed in demanding a call for a ceasefire rather than a humanitarian pause is bewildering. You just want a first step, who cares what you call it.

And they're doing so in the hope the actual parties can then negotiate when they as not the parties can't even accept calling a ceasefire a pause. Seems more than a little nuts to me, especially when Israel probably hasn't moved on from the October 7th atrocity, they're likely still in shock, how one offers them something that looks like it speaks to their trauma and is a possible path forward I've no idea, instead we've got large numbers of people who have moved on making demands from those in trauma and claiming they're the morally superior

[shaggy]

I feel I have to sometimes, for the same reason I read the Telegraph and Times, and even sometimes hold my nose and look up the Mail site and that of the Express too, making sure to wipe my feet when I close the page.
If you spend your time talking out detail among yourselves you end up with no understanding of what you are up against and how to defeat them, and hopefully win over the moderates at the same time.

I learned a lot from economic right wingers on the old Guardian Comment is Free section, I didn't agree with them but I got a fair understanding of where they were coming from. That was a good place for a real exchange of views a good few years ago, it's shame it's not what it was.

"you" are not going to defeat "them"

if for instance you never read about, heard about or thought about Israel ever again it would make no difference to the situation. it's an extremely odd thing so many of us make pivotal decision on International relations that matter not in the slightest other than for our regard to ourselves

I will read a little of the Telegraph from time to time, I wouldn't touch Morgan, the Express or the Mail with a very long pole. The Times, well that's actually the paper I read so that one I do read, and I will read a little of the Guardian too

Ok, I take responsibility for my brevity there. What I was referring to in that point was the Left v Right viewpoint, nothing to do with Israel. I believe that health, education, utilities, travel infrastructure, defence and other security (police, borders etc) should be funded for the benefit of everyone, there is no real profit to be made in those areas and should not be subject to rapacious market forces where the aim is to reward shareholders, rather than the quality of service being the end goal in of itself.

OTOH, make all the widgets you can and sell them in the private sector, fill your boots, I'm all for it, just pay your taxes.

The ones who seek to make a profit out of the health service or education etc, that is the "they" or "them" I was referring to. I know there are some that will never accept that point of view, hence my admittedly adversarial language. I'd rather win them over, I really would.

So you want to defeat the many private education facilities that are the ones that can actually cater for young people with very complex needs? How do you propose those who need a residential placement to enable any form of life to actually survive?

The private sector exists in the special needs space because decades and generations of governments have dismantled the public sector. This didn’t start happening in 2011.

[Raggs]

Do people honestly think that negotiations cannot happen without a pause or ceasefire? Israel's bargaining chip is the pause, Hamas' the hostage. A significant pause will come when hostages will be released, which going by rumours, is hopefully around about now.

Israel has been pushing for all children and their mothers, Hamas just wants to release the children (apparently the difference is 70 hostages instead of 50).