The difference is Schad is arguing with a guy who has first hand knowledge of what is going on in Israel. He's not giving his opinion, he's telling St Jerome what is happening as if it's factual. It's typical of his arrogance.
The On 29 November 2012 Palestine was granted non-member observer State status in the UN. The State of Palestine.exists. A good potted history here. https://www.un.org/unispal/history/
It exists and it doesn't. It's like a funhouse mirror version of Taiwan: where Taiwan has all of the trappings of a state, but isn't recognized as one, Palestine is recognized as one while being afforded none of the autonomy or structures of a state.
So, the often wrong anecdotal and emotional views are not occurring here but you still felt the need to mention it. Keeping that one back for later? Schad is telling St Jerome what's happening in the Middle East in his usual "Schad knows best" manner when St Jerome has years of first hand experience. The only reason you are defending Schad is because his views correspond with your own, no matter how pompous he is. "Incredibly nuanced" ffs welcome to the gang. There seems to be a common theme amongst the left on here in that you all have to conform to the handbook. "I am left wing therefore I must think this way", it appears no one can think for themselves. Anti Israel/pro Palestine, BLM, Trans, in fact any issue you can take on to display your self righteousness. Give yourself a pat on the back, you know you want to.
I have been fascinated by the balanced interview with the chap from "Hope not hate" on Radio 4 news. It really hammered home the issue that the two positions in the Israel - Hamas conflict are so extreme and entrenched. He was particulatly critical of the Left and singled out the SWP for their comments that people should rejoice as a result of the events of 7th October 2023. Reflecting upon this, I agree that the argument has now been so vociferously and violently argued that there is no middle ground. The interviewee was spot on with his comment that the consequences will ripple across the UK , Europe and the rest of the "Western World." However, I do think that he is very wrong in suggesting that things are increasingly marginalised with the Islamic world. I have to say that I think that both the Conservatives and Labour have been massively caught out by this conflict and the "correct" response to the Hamas attrocity has been followed by a huge mistep in "supporting" Israel's actions in Gaza. This has left both Sunak and Starmer looking out of touch with the public who I feel are probably 80% in favour of the Palestinians, When I was growing up in the 70s;, there was a lot of respect in the West for Israel yet it has now become a pariah state akin to Russia, North Korea or Iran. Starmer has been caught cold by the sense of injustice within his party and I applaud those MPs with Labour who have called for his resignation. What is going on in Gaza is genocide. Eighteen months ago people were right to criticise Russia for it's aggression yet many of the same people are now saying that the reaction of Israel is totally justified. I feel really ashamed on my country over this issue. The call for a ceasefire is not so much "political" as defining what it means to be human. The actions of Hamas and the IDF are no different. They cannot be seperated. I also think that it is shameful that much of the Jewish community in thr UK have remained silent. If the boot had been on the other foot, the likes of the Mail / Express, etc, etc would be calling Muslims out. Not effort has been made by any Western government as far as I am aware to prevent Israeli reservists from travelling to fight against the Palestinians where as earlier governments were quick and very correct to prevent people joining ISIS ten years ago. I actually feel that Rishi Sunak is a massive improvement on Boris yet he has called this totally wrong. Starmer has shown himself to be the shallow opportunist he is. The British public is rightly taking to the streets to protest yet we are finding people who have attended the protests not only running the risk ot prosecution for demonstrating their support for Palestine (after being called out within the British media who have also been caught off-balance) but a platform like Not606 is now subject to these laws as everyone posting has to be careful what they type so as not to appear to condone the actions of Hamas. I appreciate that Iran has played a massive role in the original attrocity and think that they are using the Palestinians as their proxy as they do not have the ability nor confidence to direct confront Israel. I think people in the UK understanding that the Palestinians required our sympathy acknowledge this. I bet the Iranians would never have expected that their actions would utlimately impact upon the freedom of speach of people in the UK now that the whole Muslim community in the UK could be shut down from airing their views due to the actions of the Home Secretary. The recent protests inLondon have been something of a sea-change. I feel that what would have roginally been the remit of both the "Progressive" Left and Muslim communities in the UK is now the mainstream view held by all right-minded Brits. The other point I wanted to raise is as wide -ranging. I have been surprised just how many "Israeli's" who had sadly and shockingly been killed either had dual nationality or came from other countries. A good number were actually Americans. All the images we have seen on TV is also demnstrative that they all appear affluent in comparison with the Palestinians who are now losing what little they had in the first place. A interview on BBC news last night summed it up for me insofar that an IDF soldier stated that "we are just like you in the West as we have the same values." I am not sure if the BBC was trying to be ironic but most Brits and in other "civilised" countries certainly do not have the same values as the IDF. I feel that the BBC coverage is bending over backwards to be as unbiased as possible but I feel that our media in the UK have been far too vanilla in the way this has been presented. I am not hearing many people I am acquainted with in the UK supporting Israel in this matter. The "argument" is being presented as "complex" yet I feel that since the bombardment of Gaza that is demonstrative that Israel is now perpertuating genocide. Why is the BBC not calling this out for the ethnic cleansing that it is ? Both the IDF and Hamas are evil yet the consequences for the Palestinians now seem terminal. I am disgusted by our politicians for not calling Israel out sooner and more vociferously.
Right enough, unfortunately the intractable differences don;t give me any hope for a peaceful solution. In my lifetime I'd have hoped to have seen some progress toward a common humanity. I see nothing that wouldn't benefit from a massive asteroid strike but please hold it back until we've won the intergalactic champions league.
I metioned it because you are saying that only lived experience, or anecdotal views, outweigh any other view point. Which is interesting... You are not transgender yet regularly harp on about it. No doubt your standpoint will differentiate on that topic, less you admit you're a massive hypocrite. I think that St Jerome made some excellent posts, as I said, I didn't side with Schad at all. My post was purely calling out your usual nonsense. For someone attempting to call out identity politics, handbooks and pre existing narratives you sure do make a lot of assumptions about others idealogies. I have disagreed with schad on a number of occasions in this thread and will continue to make my own mind up on seperate topics.
Wow... I've only just caught up on the last few posts in this thread, I'm sorry but I have to say it's only a game's post is ridiculous. Just a way to silence any dissenting views. Having first hand experience may lead to someone having greater insights into a topic but that does not mean they're infallible or immune to things like bias (not saying that's the case with Jerome). Likewise not having personal experience may not necessarily make someone's point invalid if it's based on research Otherwise we shouldn't really talk about any politics outside of British politics
Just so that you have a baseline to work with, IOAG is a couple weeks removed from suggesting that the rest of us are ****philes for believing that trans people should have rights, so this is pretty tame stuff.
Good post Ian & agree with most. I’ll probably get hammered now & possibly more than you. Ps. Where’s Os! Could do with a bit of upping the anti.
I wonder if this was true. I must have missed one the very few people I have on ignore post this previously… WhatsApp messages sent by Nicola Sturgeon relating to the Covid pandemic were manually deleted from her phone, a newspaper has reported. The Sunday Mail says the former first minister is among 70 Scottish government figures whose pandemic communications were not retained. It means these messages cannot be given to the UK or Scottish Covid inquiries into how the pandemic was handled. Ms Sturgeon's spokesperson said she was co-operating with both inquiries. It was also reported that, according to UK Covid inquiry documents, WhatsApp data from First Minister Humza Yousaf and former deputy first minister John Swinney no longer exists. We don't understand rules for using WhatsApp - says ex-minister Scottish government accused of withholding Covid WhatsApps It comes after Scottish ministers faced criticism last week for not handing over their messages. The UK inquiry was told by a lawyer that 70 individuals were asked for their WhatsApp messages, but "very few appear to have been retained".
Faux outrage The 21st century and its social media have seen an increased display of false or manufactured outrage, with power and prestige being hypocritically sought by professing concern for others, in a highly selective and temporary manner. or Faux Outrage Pretending one is offended, insulted or generally affronted by something which they really are not. The faux outrage is usually expressed publicly because it is done in the service of an agenda. Those expressing faux outrage usually labor under the delusion that no one can see through them, but most can.
Even with the theatrical use of WOW for greater effect, you're fooling no one. My comments about Schad and St Jerome aren't really what's brought you here are they? The usual suspects above (LTL, Breezer, Schad) are really having a pop because of my gender critical opinions (not what I said about Schad) and having read in the past about your own circumstances, I don't think there's much doubt you are just getting on the bandwagon. I don't expect you to agree with my opinions, that's your right. I don't really care who agrees with me and who doesn't, so stop pretending and be truthful about why you are really commenting. Don't bother replying, I have no enthusiasm to discuss this with you or any of the others above.
The **** are you talking about? I came on here to rant about the reaction to the UN secretary general's comment. I then came back several days later to see if anyone had commented, and it was while I was scrolling through I saw the drama going on which I hadn't been aware of previously. I don't know what your gender views are, and frankly I don't care. Your paranoia makes me disinclined to want to know your views. Plus you strike me as the type of person who uses the word woke. And just what have you apparently read about my own circumstances?
Wrong again. I was questioning your logic of how first hand opinion trumps all else in view of your own arguments. You have no idea what I think about your gender critical opinions. The only time I've commented on that with regard to you, was when you used your ridiculous and demonstrably wrong example of the Canadian football player. Something you steadfastly continue to refuse to acknowledge as a clear mistake.
