Israel

[FrankOFile]

Fame at last! I’ve got my own little stalker .

I may have mentioned this earlier but despising the State of Israel is not the same as hating Jews. I doubt you’ll take note of that because it doesn’t suit your narrative but it bears repeating all the same, you tiresome pillock.

More name calling. You inarticulate Israel / Jewish haters sure are an intelligent lot.

Morning Frankie! Still a bit unhinged?

It is the Hamas rocket launchers with a skewed aim which are a bit unhinged.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

More name calling. You inarticulate Israel / Jewish haters sure are an intelligent lot.

Morning Frankie! Still a bit unhinged?

It is the Hamas rocket launchers with a skewed aim which are a bit unhinged.

Good to see you revelling in a hospital being hit and people dying, because it wasn’t your side (possibly) that did it

[Dunners]

Why is this one particular strike being questioned, as opposed to the hundreds of other Israeli air strikes over the last few days? Is it just because it hit a hospital, a hospital that had already been hit by an Israeli missile?

We’re hardly likely to get a definitive answer because no independent experts are going to be allowed to check it out, but it seems odd that of all the air strikes, this is the one that’s being questioned. Just saying.

Good question. If the ground invasion of Gaza goes ahead proper, whether 50 or 500 people died will become a statistical irrelevance. I think there's a few reasons why this story matters.

The speed and eagerness at which certain media outlets, politicians and public commentators were willing to grab onto whichever narrative best supported their world view was telling. Any emerging evidence that challenged their 'opponents' was then equally eagerly pounced upon and weaponised against the other side. In other words, it's the same culture war divides we're seeing playing out in other arenas.

But, there's also the reaction we've seen unfold across the Arab world. A large proportion of the population arrived at the conclusion from the get-=go that this was an Israeli strike. No amount of evidence or persuasion will convince them otherwise. This has seen uprisings and public displays of anger towards both Israel and any government figures in those countries who have demonstrated willingness to normalise relations with Israel.

The outcome is that the normalisation process between Israel and Arab countries is on ice, if not finished. And, the leaders of the West Bank, Jordan and Egypt have all cancelled meetings with POTUS, which were intended to achieve some semblance of unity.

Who would benefit from the Arab world arriving at the conclusion that it did so quickly and so robustly?
Who would benefit from the pausing of all normalisation talks?
Who would benefit from the cancelation of unity meetings?

If Iran are not behind this, then they sure must be rubbing their hands together with their unbelievable luck. And if they are behind it then they are playing an absolute blinder.

And the events surrounding the explosion at the hospital is now pivotal to all of the above. From a political and regional security perspective, it no longer matters who did it.

[Dunners]

[Daily Express bot]

Why is this one particular strike being questioned, as opposed to the hundreds of other Israeli air strikes over the last few days? Is it just because it hit a hospital, a hospital that had already been hit by an Israeli missile?

We’re hardly likely to get a definitive answer because no independent experts are going to be allowed to check it out, but it seems odd that of all the air strikes, this is the one that’s being questioned. Just saying.

Good question. If the ground invasion of Gaza goes ahead proper, whether 50 or 500 people died will become a statistical irrelevance. I think there's a few reasons why this story matters.

The speed and eagerness at which certain media outlets, politicians and public commentators were willing to grab onto whichever narrative best supported their world view was telling. Any emerging evidence that challenged their 'opponents' was then equally eagerly pounced upon and weaponised against the other side. In other words, it's the same culture war divides we're seeing playing out in other arenas.

But, there's also the reaction we've seen unfold across the Arab world. A large proportion of the population arrived at the conclusion from the get-=go that this was an Israeli strike. No amount of evidence or persuasion will convince them otherwise. This has seen uprisings and public displays of anger towards both Israel and any government figures in those countries who have demonstrated willingness to normalise relations with Israel.

The outcome is that the normalisation process between Israel and Arab countries is on ice, if not finished. And, the leaders of the West Bank, Jordan and Egypt have all cancelled meetings with POTUS, which were intended to achieve some semblance of unity.

Who would benefit from the Arab world arriving at the conclusion that it did so quickly and so robustly?
Who would benefit from the pausing of all normalisation talks?
Who would benefit from the cancelation of unity meetings?

If Iran are not behind this, then they sure must be rubbing their hands together with their unbelievable luck. And if they are behind it then they are playing an absolute blinder.

And the events surrounding the explosion at the hospital is now pivotal to all of the above. From a political and regional security perspective, it no longer matters who did it.

Agree with most of what you say but after ‘media outlets’ please insert ‘and certain Labour Politicians’

[Harlow]

Interesting interview between Anna Botting (Sky News) and Mark Regev last night when understandably emotions were running high about what was being reported about the hospital strike, but shows how certain sections of the media are unable to remain impartial.

https://news.sky.com/video/israel-hamas ... l-12986579

This interviewer seemed to have no wish to hear something different to what, presumably, she wanted to hear, certainly had nothing with which to contradict Regev's comments-perhaps because there isn't anything contradictory. Of course, I am likely to be biased

[Dunners]

Agree with most of what you say but after ‘media outlets’ please insert ‘and certain Labour Politicians’

This is not isolated to being a UK issue, or party political. It's not in the people's interest to be unhelpfully divisive. You're obviously referring to Corbyn here, and he has been called out by many people on the left for what he said, and is no longer a Labour politician.

[greyhound]

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/pro-palestini ... 55379.html


put them on a plane send them straight back to Palestine.
there no good to us.

[Proposition Joe]

What luck, your naked racism and appalling grammar is just what this thread needed.

[Admin]

Agree with most of what you say but after ‘media outlets’ please insert ‘and certain Labour Politicians’

This is not isolated to being a UK issue, or party political. It's not in the people's interest to be unhelpfully divisive. You're obviously referring to Corbyn here, and he has been called out by many people on the left for what he said, and is no longer a Labour politician.

[Orange] But bar that, LCL's spot on with his analysis. [Orange]

[Daily Express bot]

Agree with most of what you say but after ‘media outlets’ please insert ‘and certain Labour Politicians’

This is not isolated to being a UK issue, or party political. It's not in the people's interest to be unhelpfully divisive. You're obviously referring to Corbyn here, and he has been called out by many people on the left for what he said, and is no longer a Labour politician.

[Orange] But bar that, LCL's spot on with his analysis. [Orange]

Actually, Corbyn never entered my mind as he has no whip and is an independent. I was referring more to the 30 or so pro PalestinianLabour MP’s who are calling for a ceasefire , criticising their leader Sir Kier, including John McDonnell, Zarah Sultana , Apsana Begum, Tahir Ali to name a few. Starmer has had to write to them and all Labour councillors about restraint and quite rightly so in my view.

[Proposition Joe]

They need to show restraint because calling for a ceasefire in an extremist position, righto.

[Admin]

This is not isolated to being a UK issue, or party political. It's not in the people's interest to be unhelpfully divisive. You're obviously referring to Corbyn here, and he has been called out by many people on the left for what he said, and is no longer a Labour politician.

[Orange] But bar that, LCL's spot on with his analysis. [Orange]

Actually, Corbyn never entered my mind as he has no whip and is an independent. I was referring more to the 30 or so pro PalestinianLabour MP’s who are calling for a ceasefire , criticising their leader Sir Kier, including John McDonnell, Zarah Sultana , Apsana Begum, Tahir Ali to name a few. Starmer has had to write to them and all Labour councillors about restraint and quite rightly so in my view.

You're a believer in free speech then?

[Daily Express bot]

They need to show restraint because calling for a ceasefire in an extremist position, righto.
[/

[Daily Express bot]

[Orange] But bar that, LCL's spot on with his analysis. [Orange]

Actually, Corbyn never entered my mind as he has no whip and is an independent. I was referring more to the 30 or so pro PalestinianLabour MP’s who are calling for a ceasefire , criticising their leader Sir Kier, including John McDonnell, Zarah Sultana , Apsana Begum, Tahir Ali to name a few. Starmer has had to write to them and all Labour councillors about restraint and quite rightly so in my view.

You're a believer in free speech then?

I am a believer in free speech, objectivity , diplomacy, fairness, tact, and inclusion.

[Daily Express bot]

They need to show restraint because calling for a ceasefire in an extremist position, righto.

They did not just call for a ceasefire, showed bias.

[Daily Express bot]

They need to show restraint because calling for a ceasefire in an extremist position, righto.

They did not just call for a ceasefire, showed bias. Ms Sultana MP, blaming Israel for the hospital attack and citing war crimes, from the comfort of her Coventry Constituency. I was calling for a cease fire last week!

[Admin]

Actually, Corbyn never entered my mind as he has no whip and is an independent. I was referring more to the 30 or so pro PalestinianLabour MP’s who are calling for a ceasefire , criticising their leader Sir Kier, including John McDonnell, Zarah Sultana , Apsana Begum, Tahir Ali to name a few. Starmer has had to write to them and all Labour councillors about restraint and quite rightly so in my view.

You're a believer in free speech then?

I am a believer in free speech, objectivity , diplomacy, fairness, tact, and inclusion.

So what's wrong with calling for a ceasefire then?

As it happens, don't bother replying. I'm not even sure why I continue to engage with you.

PS - learn how to use the f*cking quote function.

[CEB]

You're a believer in free speech then?

I am a believer in free speech, objectivity , diplomacy, fairness, tact, and inclusion.

So what's wrong with calling for a ceasefire then?

As it happens, don't bother replying. I'm not even sure why I continue to engage with you.

PS - learn how to use the f*cking quote function.

I’m not necessarily advocating for this position, because de-escalation is surely necessary at some point and the sooner the better, but the argument against those calling for a ceasefire is surely that they call for it when it asks something of one side, and not of the other. So it’s easy to call for the “other” side to stop, less easy to call on those you re allied with/sympathise with/its expedient to back to be the ones to not retaliate?

[Daily Express bot]

You're a believer in free speech then?

I am a believer in free speech, objectivity , diplomacy, fairness, tact, and inclusion.

So what's wrong with calling for a ceasefire then?

As it happens, don't bother replying. I'm not even sure why I continue to engage with you.

PS - learn how to use the f*cking quote function.

Nothing wrong for calling for a ceasefire. The pre-judging of who was responsible for the hospital attack was the issue.

[Proposition Joe]

So if calling for a ceasefire wasn't relevant to the point you were apparently trying to make, why did you mention it?

[Admin]

I am a believer in free speech, objectivity , diplomacy, fairness, tact, and inclusion.

So what's wrong with calling for a ceasefire then?

As it happens, don't bother replying. I'm not even sure why I continue to engage with you.

PS - learn how to use the f*cking quote function.

I’m not necessarily advocating for this position, because de-escalation is surely necessary at some point and the sooner the better, but the argument against those calling for a ceasefire is surely that they call for it when it asks something of one side, and not of the other. So it’s easy to call for the “other” side to stop, less easy to call on those you re allied with/sympathise with/its expedient to back to be the ones to not retaliate?

Probably, but I believe LCL is referring to Richard Burgon's HOC motion calling on all parties to cease hostilities and for Hamas to release the hostages.

[Daily Express bot]

So if calling for a ceasefire wasn't relevant to the point you were apparently trying to make, why did you mention it?

I was hoping for a ceasefire last week , the post above was highlighting certain Labour MP’s ignoring Starmer’s request for cross party unity on the matter. The 30 or so MP’s ignoring him are I’ll judging the situation and are not being objective.

[Max B Gold]

I am a believer in free speech, objectivity , diplomacy, fairness, tact, and inclusion.

So what's wrong with calling for a ceasefire then?

As it happens, don't bother replying. I'm not even sure why I continue to engage with you.

PS - learn how to use the f*cking quote function.

I’m not necessarily advocating for this position, because de-escalation is surely necessary at some point and the sooner the better, but the argument against those calling for a ceasefire is surely that they call for it when it asks something of one side, and not of the other. So it’s easy to call for the “other” side to stop, less easy to call on those you re allied with/sympathise with/its expedient to back to be the ones to not retaliate?

I think you are ignoring the power imbalance in the argument you say is used against those calling for a ceasefire.

[Proposition Joe]

So if calling for a ceasefire wasn't relevant to the point you were apparently trying to make, why did you mention it?

I was hoping for a ceasefire last week , the post above was highlighting certain Labour MP’s ignoring Starmer’s request for cross party unity on the matter. The 30 or so MP’s ignoring him are I’ll judging the situation and are not being objective.

Every reply answers a different question, if this is a bit the consistency is absolutely A*.