Well I liked it, re-read it and with the exception of a comment regarding a comparison between Israel and the Nazis which I disassociate myself from, do generally agree with with the thrust of what Ian says. Both my Grandads fought in France in WW1, my Winchester Grandad fought also in Gallipoli. He was injured in France but survived. My Dad served in WW2 and I served in the RAF for 6 years in the 60's (fortunately didn't see any action) Certainly my Dad would've agreed with Archers that they served to in order to ensure that all of us, including Ian, can express their opinions on matters such as this.
Very much in line with my feelings and family experiences. My father joined up early WW2 in REME became a WO1 and turned down a commission. He didn't think to much of the officer classes, quite contemptible, ranked alongside the yanks after being in the desert then going up through Italy. Long time gone now he would have been more Corbyn than Starmer but would have put anyone with pretensions of leadership under scrutiny.
I'll repeat what I said the first time. I wasn't suggesting that Thumwood should be shutdown. But as a poster a few weeks ago on here told me "free speech is ok but opinions have consequences", or some other self righteous bullshit, it was something like that. Thumbwood gave his opinion and I gave mine, I thought his opinion was disgusting and that's what I told him. I used part of what he (Thumbwood) said and turned it around. Archers (incorrectly) seemed to think I was trying to shut him down. I also said that the story I told was to illustrate how many tragic experiences like that aren't that long ago, that relatives need to feel their loss is recognised and the ultimate sacrifice is acknowledged. Remembrance Day does that and they've not "served their purpose" as he put it. I certainly didn't put it up to start a competition to see who had the most relatives serve in WW2. I still can't see why anyone would agree with Thumbwood, as he has already shown his posts lack any sense of compassion or empathy.
I believe it’s all too easy for us to forget in this country what it’s like to live with a serious existential threat against us. I will forever remain grateful for those that have enabled me to live in peace and without fear.
You're giving Israel sole credit for deals negotiated by both sides for some reason. I'll pick on one moment here, simply because it was the last, best chance of peace: the 2008 talks. What caused the 2008 talks to break down wasn't that the Palestinians refused to come to the table, but rather that Ehud Olmert -- the last Israeli prime minister with any interest in genuine negotiation -- was facing a bribery scandal that ultimately landed him in prison. Abbas hesitated on signing an agreement which committed the Palestinians to significant concessions when there was no guarantee Olmert was actually in a position to follow through, and indeed his government fell shortly thereafter, to be replaced by Netanyahu . And notably, not one of the items on your list happened in the past fifteen years, because from the moment Bibi took office, he has categorically refused to negotiate along the framework of previous agreements. All you've really accomplished is demonstrating that there were decades of good-faith negotiations between the sides that ended the moment that Bibi became PM.
Could also read the 200 page Amnesty International report that I posted, or the UN report linked in the Al Jazeera one, but I suspect you'd prefer to just sidestep it.
we know how the UN and Amnesty feel. That’s been made clear over the years. So consider that sidestepped, big man.
hear hear. But that’s not how Jews who have lived here for several generations and contributed fully to and assimilated into society. It’s devastating really.
So you're simply going to state that the UN and various NGOs (including many Israeli NGOs) are anti-Semitic and cannot be trusted?
Give this a read, it’s an interesting take: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/united-nations-biased-un-israel-6p7xzdjtv The fact that he couldn’t even hide the biases at a time when he needed to deliver a neutral statement to bring all parties to the table, he couldn’t even do that. Extremely revealing. Amnesty haven’t even adopted the IHRA definition of anti semitism which totally undermines it all. Even the Corbyn led Labour Party had to agree to that one. They’ve disputed Israel’s right to even exist. So that’s hardly the barometer of balance, is it?
I implore you to do some research outside of your extremely narrow view. Your arguments have the whiff of somebody googling their own beliefs and then citing things that roughly corroborate that. On that note, goodnight and enjoy the far left side of your bed!
I have an MA in Political Science and International Relations. But sure, let's just assume that literally all criticism of Israel, including that from within Israel (and if you read back, you'll notice that all of the news articles I posted with the exception of the al-Jazeera one, came from Israeli sources) are just anti-Semitism. Can't see how that would possibly end in a situation where Israel gives itself cover for committing crimes against humanity or anything.
Lol. I’m a lawyer, it doesn’t make me an expert in humanitarian law and international law (although I am more qualified than 95% of people who have become overnight experts). Love those who hide behind irrelevant and outdated degrees. Also, the lack of denial that you’re a far left leaner speaks volumes
Are you familiar with B’Tselem and other groups that deplore the far right coalition government and the widespread condemnation of Netanyahu? https://www.timesofisrael.com/over-...un-to-not-adopt-ihra-antisemitism-definition/ https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/04...iety-groups-urge-united-nations-respect-human Enjoy your alt right side of the bed.
When you deem the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem and others to be far left, there really isn't any point in arguing with your definitions.
