I suspect her daily utterances of bile have nothing to do with reality. They are more the posturing of a right wing populist who is positioning herself to be the Tory leader after they lose the next election. Bring it on, should lead to at least 10 years of progressive government.
Hang on, prior to the Hamas terror attacks Israel were the clear aggressor in the Israel/ Palestine situation. The reason Hamas have been able to recruit people to commit such atrocities for their batshit crazy islamist regime is precisely because the Palestinian people have been subjugated for decades. Israel haven't faced a genuine existential threat in the way Palestinians have. Not even close. The terror attacks in Israel were shocking, but the Israeli reaction has violated numerous articles of the Geneva conventional and you damn well know it.
Adam Serwer wrote a rather insightful article, 'The Cruelty is the Point', about this phenomenon during the Trump administration: the extent to which performative cruelty was one of the chief organizing principles of his movement, and one of the things that insulated him from blowback from his followers. So long as he remained openly, lavishly cruel to the people they disliked, he could get away with an awful lot of incompetence without suffering at all in their eyes. (Paywalled, but there are means to remove it) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ Braverman appears to be leaning into that model, and I'd imagine that she is trying to set herself up as the presumptive Conservative leader in a world where they get smashed next year and double down on this vision of right-wing governance: politics as cruel performance art, much as the right wing in the US (and increasingly in Canada as well) have done.
I’ve seen stories that Farage wants to be the next leader of the Tory party so if he does throw his hat in the ring it will be two openly racist and evil people facing off. Hopefully if Farage does I’m a Celebrity he will get dropped out of a helicopter without a parachute.
Archer's Thanks for your support in this discussion. However, I do not feel that the argument I am presenting is controversial. It just seems to be common sense to me. If more people like those protesting on the streets about Palestine had been more vocal in 1914, there might not have been a need for Remembrance Sunday. It is ridiculous that this argument is being poarised as the people attending the protests and the Remembrance Sunday events are both making statements on the futility of war. Surely it is better people are protesting on the streets now than we end up remembering the fallen in yet another unnecessary conflict ?
Not true. Hamas and Palestine are the ones that have been offered peace and rejected it. Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. They will not stop until they eradicate the Jews there. So I ask again - faced with a neighbour whose stated goal is to eradicate your whole population.. what should Israel do?
Another random talking point. Years ago, hot fan watch was a bit part of any football match (particularly vs Brazil). Nowadays that is not as common (but clearly not entirely gone), yet take a look at the BBC homepage and most stories have an attractive woman next to them. Does it strike anyone else as a bit weird that of all the hostages in Gaza the ones we see are ‘sexy click bait’ for stories? This is pretty much universally true of any tragedy or trauma story…
Hamas do not have the military capabilities nor the volume people required to fulfil any single one of the batshit desires. Israel on the other hand have been incredibly successful in occupying Palestine.
I should also state unequivocally that I am pro-Israeli. (How's that for showing that 'propaganda is working', Os?) It's perfectly acceptable to be both of those things at the same time. In fact I'd argue that you should be both of those things. Why? They're groups of human beings and they all deserve to live as fulfilling lives as possible as peacefully as possible. This perverse need to choose a group of citizens is ludicrous. It's an example of black and white thinking that does nobody any good. It's also OK to say Hamas's actions were a total disgrace and Israel's indiscriminate use of force is disproportionate. You don't have to pick a side. You can praise or criticise both sides. Vin
No, no, that’s not how it works Vin. You have to be influenced by one or many streams of propaganda into taking a firmly entrenched position on one side of an argument, from which you can never be allowed to deviate, no matter how persuasive or compelling the evidence might be.
But just because they don’t have the firepower to fulfil it right now, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a huge problem for Israel now & in the future. Like I have said, Israel have genuinely offered peace deals with Palestine numerous times in the last couple of decades and the result is electing Hamas, terrorist attacks and missiles into Tel Aviv. Palestine’s would rather kill all Jews than find any form of peace, as far as I can tell. I don’t really see what alternatives Israel have but to neutralise Hamas now. This is why the whole situation is an absolute **** show. Israel have had the military might to be able to wipe out Palestine for a looong time - and they haven’t. What does that tell you? It tells you that they are open to diplomacy.
Now this I agree with. couldn’t have said it better. The problem is the ‘indiscriminate’ use of force. Also I’ve seen the word ‘proportionate’ bandied about. Unfortunately it just isn’t how war works. It has always been the case that civilians pay the price for the whims of the politicians. Especially when scumbags like Hamas use the population as human shields. It’s a horrifying situation.
Think you’ve flipped Hamas & Palestines in there quite a bit. Maybe that’s part of the problem. They are not the same.
If you think Hamas will ever have the firepower to threaten Israeli existence in any serious capacity then you are frankly deluded. And let's not pretend that only Palestine produces blood thirsty idealogues with deeply concerning world views. Smotrich has some pretty saucy opinions and isn't at all concerned to share them on an international stage, including encouraging the eradication of Palestinian towns in the West Bank. Unfortunately this issue has in the last few years increasingly been dictated by complete lunatics on both sides of the aisle. But once again it is largely Palestinian civilians that die in disproportionately high numbers. I heard the other day that per capita, Gaza has lost about 50% of the percentage of people that the UK did in 6 years of WW2 in just a few weeks. And we all know how long negative sentiments towards Nazis and Germany lasted in the UK.
Both sides have offered peace deals in negotiations. At no time have those deals been acceptable to both parties. The notion that Israel has been offering acceptable, actionable terms for a two-state solution and the Palestinians have rejected it is simply untrue. I'm trying to find it, but there was an oral history of the negotiations that took place during the Obama era, and the comment was that neither side would leave Tzipi Livni (the long-time top Israeli negotiator) and her Palestinian counterpart alone in a room, because they were afraid that if they did so, they'd have an acceptable peace deal hammered out in a few hours. And the top political actors on both sides did not want that. Here's an article after peace talks collapsed where the US envoy blamed Netanyahu for the collapse of talks, because he was simply unwilling to compromise in the slightest: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4516768,00.html And again: Hamas took power because the Netanyahu government propped up Hamas as a means of undermining Fatah, and thus ensuring that there couldn't be a coherent Palestinian state. Members of the government have outright stated this. Or it tells you that the consequences for committing genocide are such that they have merely killed tens of thousands of them, rather than millions, because the international community will turn a blind eye to the former but not the latter.
Yep, it’s a bit like saying everyone in the UK, including the lefties on here, are all Tory supporters because the Tories won the last election.
This Israeli minister is seemingly happy to use nuclear weapons to end the Gaza conflict, despite his later utterances. A MINISTER who claimed dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza was an option has been suspended by the Israeli government. Asked whether a weapon of mass destruction should be used on the Strip, Amichai Eliyahu said “this is one of the possibilities”. And when quizzed about the fate of the Palestinian population, the heritage minister added: “They can go to Ireland or deserts. The monsters in Gaza should find a solution by themselves.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved swiftly to rebuke the Mr Eliyahu, calling his words “detached from reality”. Opposition leader Yair Lapid described the claims as “a horrifying and insane remark by an irresponsible minister”. Mr Eliyahu later argued his quip had been purely metaphorical.
