Violent conflicts.

[Carlton green]

And that's the problem facing us and the politicians. How can you criticise the actions of the Israeli government without having the charge of being anti-semitic being thrown at you.
The actions of Hamas have rightly been widely condemned and shown how barbaric they are but the actions by Israel show deep down there is no difference.
What I find most worrying is that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Israel were faced with defeat I wonder would they be just as likely to use them as Russia.

I think that people need to be quite specific about drawing a clear line being people who are Jewish by religion and people who are Israeli by nationality. Israel is not a state condemned (by others) because of its religion, it is condemned because of its actions. If someone is Jewish then they should be free from antisemitic attacks but if someone supports the actions of the State of Israel then they fairly open themselves up to critical comment. It’s a fine and dangerous line to tread, I’m not at all surprised that people pull well back from it.

Israel has a nuclear deterrent, it gained it with the objective of using it and people knowing that they’d use it. If backed into a really tight corner then they’d pull the trigger and say sod the consequences - for them it really is a case of kill or be killed.

Despite the conflict with Armistice Day I hope that the protest marches still go ahead, but in a respectful way. Those that died in the great wars did so whilst fighting for liberty; we should not forget them and one way of honouring sacrifice for liberty is to see that actions - whereever they happen - that damage liberty and peace are condemned.

[djnotts]

"What I find most worrying is that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Israel were faced with defeat I wonder would they be just as likely to use them as Russia...."

MORE likely I think. It would be using them against enemies who do not HAVE nukes and who do not have allies who'd retaliate on their behalf.

[pwa]

"What I find most worrying is that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Israel were faced with defeat I wonder would they be just as likely to use them as Russia...."

MORE likely I think. It would be using them against enemies who do not HAVE nukes and who do not have allies who'd retaliate on their behalf.

I don't see a scenario in which Israel would use nuclear weapons. Near neighbours in Gaza, Lebanon or Syria are non-nuclear forces. Iran is probably still non-nuclear, but even if it weren't / isn't, Iran is currently holding back from direct involvement, probably worried about events spiralling out of control.

[reohn2]

Yes Jon. Pebble's frantic whataboutery cannot distract attention from Netanyahu's genocide and ethnic cleansing.
He has nothing to say about how Israel built up Hamas deliberately and provoked the Palestinians in order to kill them and expel them from their land. My posts above detail this, but all he can say is 'what about...'. Atrocities elsewhere do not justify the horror going on in Gaza, and beginning in the West Bank.
Cannot he bring himself to condemn this murder of civilians?
I cannot imagine how the Hamas terrorists could bring themselves to murder at such close quarters, but inflicting the inevitable and horrible deaths on civilians and children from the air does not make murder less culpable.

Don't forget,Pebble thinks Suella Braverman would,in his own words "make a good Prime Minister"

[wheelyhappy99]

Maybe you should travel a bit more and go to somewhere like Rochdale if you want to see cultural schism and the way it can be exploited. You will see some inter-marriage there, and some meeting of cultures. But you will also see distinct ethnic grouping in where people live, and a lot of people using "them" and "us" language. And that will only lose its potential for trouble when the distinction between group A and group B has gone.

I happen to know Rochdale reasonably well. And Keighley and Blackburn, just two more towns with struggling economies and groups living largely separately from each other. There is another question that interests me though. If you believe that multi cultural communities cannot work well (not the same as sometimes don't), what distinction(s) would you use to group together people who are allowed to settle in the same place? Would you use religion, ethnic or racial origin, income, levelof education? Other criteria might be available.

Pebble, I realise there have been a lot of posts on this topic in a short time, so you may have missed my reply to one of your earlier posts. For your convenience I've copied it above.

[Biospace]

The point made referencing the large numbers of children killed in, for example, Syria and Yemen, should be a very pertinent one, but few are mentioning the contrast. I didn't see much coverege on the BBC or other networks beyond Al Jazeera reporting the daily killing of children.

What is so special about Israel that it should be protected from my criticisms when I dislike the way it acts?

The apartheid state created by Israel has been ignored for decades by the West, only highlighting our duplicity. Why the different treatment of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and so on.

[Mike Sales]

Early in the Ukraine war I posted here, wondering why it was getting so much more attention here, and in our media in general, than all the other dreadful conflicts elsewhere in the world.
The impression I got, reading between the lines, and more explicitly, was that we cared more about the people who are white and european, who are more like us.
I think we see Israel in much the same way, and take a closer interest in what goes on there.
I am not entirely frivolous in pointing out that both countries compete in the Eurovision Song Contest.

[pwa]

Maybe you should travel a bit more and go to somewhere like Rochdale if you want to see cultural schism and the way it can be exploited. You will see some inter-marriage there, and some meeting of cultures. But you will also see distinct ethnic grouping in where people live, and a lot of people using "them" and "us" language. And that will only lose its potential for trouble when the distinction between group A and group B has gone.

I happen to know Rochdale reasonably well. And Keighley and Blackburn, just two more towns with struggling economies and groups living largely separately from each other. There is another question that interests me though. If you believe that multi cultural communities cannot work well (not the same as sometimes don't), what distinction(s) would you use to group together people who are allowed to settle in the same place? Would you use religion, ethnic or racial origin, income, levelof education? Other criteria might be available.

That's me, pwa, you are quoting.

Sorry, I did miss your reply.

I think parallel communities can exist side-by-side in relative harmony for a while, and that is certainly much better than them not living in harmony at all. But as long as they remain separate and distinct, there remains an undercurrent of "them and us" that promotes distrust and suspicion, and allows for things to flare up when something happens to trigger conflict. I formed this opinion more than forty years ago when still living in my childhood home on the outskirts of Bolton. I heard some fellow white people voicing their suspicions about "Asians" living in the town, and it seemed to me very unhealthy for white people and Asian people to be living so separately, and therefore not forming relationships as people do in a thriving community. I believe we should be working to break down these barriers so that people of different ethnicities feel comfortable living in the same street and make friendships in a race-blind way. It happens already, of course, but not enough in some towns.

The one criterion for where one lives that is hard to get away from is wealth. One's wealth, or lack of it, kind of dictates where one can live.

[Biospace]

...
The one criterion for where one lives that is hard to get away from is wealth. One's wealth, or lack of it, kind of dictates where one can live.

The more mobile society and the greater the ability of the laptop classes to be able to work remotely, the more the relatively cash-poor are pushed out of the more aesthetically pleasant places to live. Whole swathes of North Yorkshire (and plenty more rural England) have been 'socially cleansed' over the last half century which has left rural parts very much poorer.

Social cleansing is something of a misnomer, it's more cleansing by earnings so much local culture has vanished, replaced with multiple 4x4 Audis, BMWs and other massive Range Rover type uglies.

Largely unmentioned is that quality of education often now depends more than ever on the local property prices.

[francovendee]

"What I find most worrying is that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Israel were faced with defeat I wonder would they be just as likely to use them as Russia...."

MORE likely I think. It would be using them against enemies who do not HAVE nukes and who do not have allies who'd retaliate on their behalf.

I don't see a scenario in which Israel would use nuclear weapons. Near neighbours in Gaza, Lebanon or Syria are non-nuclear forces. Iran is probably still non-nuclear, but even if it weren't / isn't, Iran is currently holding back from direct involvement, probably worried about events spiralling out of control.

I see it as a remote possibility, if Israel was about to be overrun by opposing forces (who may be intent on removing the land of Israel) I think the extreme right wing wouldn't hesitate to use them. Rather take the world with them than lose.

[pwa]

"What I find most worrying is that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Israel were faced with defeat I wonder would they be just as likely to use them as Russia...."

MORE likely I think. It would be using them against enemies who do not HAVE nukes and who do not have allies who'd retaliate on their behalf.

I don't see a scenario in which Israel would use nuclear weapons. Near neighbours in Gaza, Lebanon or Syria are non-nuclear forces. Iran is probably still non-nuclear, but even if it weren't / isn't, Iran is currently holding back from direct involvement, probably worried about events spiralling out of control.

I see it as a remote possibility, if Israel was about to be overrun by opposing forces (who may be intent on removing the land of Israel) I think the extreme right wing wouldn't hesitate to use them. Rather take the world with them than lose.

With two US aircraft carriers parked in the eastern Med, the likes of Iran will keep away, and anyone else with an inch of self preservation in their psyche will stay at home. Israel is not going to be over-run.

[briansnail]

Many people on both sides do not want war.They want peace.The people who TEND to get elected to power are more extreme and want war.There should be a law their kids should be first to be sent to the battlefield.

In which case there would be no wars.
**************************************************
I ride Brompton and a 100% British Vintage

[Psamathe]

I see now Netanyahu is saying Israel will have ‘overall security responsibility’ in Gaza after war (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... auses-gaza).

I can't see any way that is ever going to create any sort of peace. An occupying force to create a lasting peace? I suspect he's maybe just had to dream-up something as many world leaders have been disparing at the lack of any plan for after the action - and Netanyahu hasn't thought it through. Or maybe Netanyahu has thought it through and it's a land grab and we'll see illegal settlers, "security forces" allowing those settlers free reign ...

Ian

[toontra]

I can't see any way that is ever going to create any sort of peace.

But that's the whole point. Israel doesn't want peace, at least in any recognisable or realistic way. It suits them fine to have an enemy that effectively prevents any chance of a Palestinian state. This is all part of the game-plan and always has been, at the expense of an ongoing low-level threat* to its own security - a price it's clearly prepared to pay.

* The events of 7th October are a bump in the road but in the long term will further Israel's aims.

[mattheus]

Many people on both sides do not want war.They want peace.The people who TEND to get elected to power are more extreme and want war.There should be a law their kids should be first to be sent to the battlefield.

In which case there would be no wars.

I guess it's easy to see it like that with our 21stC perspective - but kings and princes used to lead armies, so I don't think it's a strong general trend.
[see also - that arrow on the Bayeux Tapestry!]