Yeah but to be fair, if Cuba had just finished obliterating, say, Guantánamo base and reclaiming occupied national territory. And in the process had vaporised Grand 5* US Lord General Bigbelly and Rear Admiral Shoutymouth, we might expect that there would be some severe stress on the way imminently. Didn't the Iranians give loads of warning the attack was on the way? I heard it on the news here for several days before. Biden was spouting it was imminent and all sorts. It seemed to be the equivalent of where they used to give warnings in WW1 - look out, we will be shelling this section of trench at 11am next Wednesday. To repeat, nobody seems to be hurt. Certainly nobody seems dead. The Iranians say they don't want war. The British say they don't want war. The French say they don't want war. Even the Yanks, amazingly, say they don't want war. If the Iranian attack was 'unprecedented' then that's even more so. So who is left who wants war? Some little squeaky ex-Tory fella, a warmongering Spitfire fondler type, came on the radio and spoke in favour of death and destruction, but who else? Are you in favour of war?
There is a 7 year old girl in life threatening condition who had shrapnel from a ballistic missile land on her in her bed.
Nobody was hurt so let's just forget that they fired hundreds of cruise missiles at us! Israel has been attacked directly by a nation state - at the risk of sounding like a "Spitfire fondler" I don't see how anything other than a declaration of all out war would be an appropriate response. If Israel is persuaded to turn the other cheek the next time Iran or anyone chooses to lob a few missiles their way they'll probably have nuclear warheads
I don’t agree that this was as telegraphed as you say. Think that’s Iran saying that to limit their failings. And if it was to be a warning then they wouldn’t have used a combination of drones, cruise and ballistic missiles fired from different locations, all of which travel at different trajectories and at different speeds but all fired to hit Israel at the same time. This was intended to be a huge show of force and with the intention of causing fatalities. It failed having said all of that I agree that an escalation of the war by an attack on Iran would be the right route to go for Israel. I would be far more in favour to stay on the mission of getting the hostages back and dismantling Hamas terror tunnels. But that would involve an incursion into Rafah I would change that view if Israel and its allied forces had information that Irans nuclear programme presented a huge and imminent threat to the region
With Israel being attacked by Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and now Iran through Syria, Iraq and Yemen, I would say Israel is at war
Of course Israel is absolutely free to declare war on Iran if it wants to. But when in 3-6 months it completely runs out of munitions and defensive capabilities without having dealt much more than a superficial blow to Iran, I suspect it's view might change. And I'm sure that's why the US, UK and others are telling them to be smarter in how they respond.
What constitutes a smart response? Get Netanyahu to keep deliberately using the wrong pronoun when referring to Ayatollah Khomeini in tweets?
I should have thought the smart response would be to learn that the Iranians are not going to meekly accept having their country attacked and people killed, Then to not do it again. Iran sent over a few million dollars worth of drones and cruise missiles. Israel (and allies) spent billions on shooting them down. Stocks of interceptors must be starting to run down. Iran apparently has much more lethal weapons, including ones which confound the Israeli defences. Ones which explode into loads of decoys designed to trick the interceptors into firing off multiple missiles. They've had a very nice practical demonstration of the capabilities of the Israeli air defences now. I would suggest it is a VERY bad idea for Israel to pick a war with Iran.
I'm a bit confused by this. In that article they say these missiles were "sent over by the dozen" but don't give a number. Then they say there were 110 ballistic missile attacks, but I know there were also cruise missiles. But I heard 301 total. Maybe that included the drones. Were these the hypersonic missiles that have been talked about? Could I ask, respectfully, if you're of the opinion that the Iranians set out to do as much murderous damage to Israel as they could, would you also be of the opinion that that's their lot? Their grand show and best effort has been blown and pretty easily frustrated. I'm just curious about what the opinion is.
120 ballistic, 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles were fired at Israel. As said above, the missiles were fired from different locations, fly at different trajectories and at different speeds making it far harder to destroy inflight but all aimed to land within Israel at exactly the same time. This was absolutely no “show of force”, this was aimed at creating a lot of damage You need to fully understand the culture in this region. The only reason Hezbollah do not invade Israel or Iran has not attacked Israel historically is their fear of the IDF reprisals. Show weakness and the attacks will be a regular occurrence. It won’t go away. Israel is dealing with countries that want it obliterated. Iran is dealing with a changing political Middle East with Saudi aligning with Israel. Russia has its own issues. As for your question, Iran has the money and probably the weaponry to destroy Israel. Even more so if their nuclear programme that Obama funded is ahead of its target. The reason this doesn’t happen is Israel and its allies also have the ability to destroy Iran
Wow, all the more reason for fervently wishing it doesn't escalate further then. You're quite right I'm woefully ignorant on tbe history and culture of the region - although I do know that in Israel they get up in the morning slaving for bread sah. I also heard talk of maybe Russia and China wading in on the Iranian side. Do you think that's possible?
russia and China have always had closer links to Iran whereas Israel has always had closer links with the West Chinas response to the attack was disappointing but to be expected. Russia has its own issues and is currently gaining a foothold in Ukraine and I guess will challenge NATO at some point by an attack on a NATO country (Poland?). It’s not in Russias interest at this stage to get involved in a battle elsewhere I agree I would far rather Israel concentrated on the hostages that may or may not be left in Gaza and continue to dismantle any Hamas infrastructure. But Bibis view may be fight fire with fire
Liked for gratuitous Desmond Dekker reference, Desmond, as we all sadly know, had highly combustible ears.
Strange start to the day. US says at least 1 missile has struck Iran. Israel, as is usual, says nothing. Iran says it didn't happen. Could this be a chance to diffuse the tension? The world will know Israel has had it's (restrained) revenge. Iran can claim it didn't happen and, if it did, they easily dealt with it. No need for further revenge? Or am I being overly optimistic?
Looked like Israel fired a few missiles near area where Irans nuclear and missile production facilities are located, seems to be quite far into Iran also. I see this as just a warning from Israel to be honest, lets see how Iran respond but I'm not expecting them to want to go further with it.
He doesn't have time to write his resignation letter as he's too busy with the apology ones. In slightly more seriousness though, that Gideon chap got exactly what he was looking for and quite clearly wasn't there in good faith. People can debate hypothetical freedoms to cross the road or feelings or whatever but the beleaguered old bill have to deal with the cold hard reality of juggling all this crap. Also seems Sky have longer footage of the whole encounter: https://news.sky.com/story/i-was-je...rageous-reaction-to-antisemitism-row-13120776
No, I'm sure you're right and he didn't just happen to be passing. It doesn't make the incident any less revolting though. I do have a degree of sympathy for the copper too - I get what, I think, he was trying to say. But his comments do seem to reflect what some (myself included) see as the Met's muddle headed approach to these bloody demonstrations. Can you imagine the uproar if it had been a national Front march and a black chap was told his blackness was provocative.
That Jewish fella would be taken aback by the things that other minorities get called. "Openly Black" would be the very least of it! Unfortunately not one of these multitude of incidences make it on to the TV and radio, far less for days on end and with the prime minister commentating and apologies from Scotland yard. Look, if there was a BNP skinhead march going on, I would be quite happy for a cop to warn me that it wouldn't be a good idea to walk down that way. In fact I'd probably thank him. Saying openly Jewish was clumsy and stupid. But I could see what he was trying to say. Conspicuously Jewish? Obviously Jewish? How would you give a warning to someone that they're about to walk into a multitude of protestors who might be well disposed to give them verbal at the very least? To ask for the resignation of the head cop is ridiculous as is the overblown fuss kicked up over the incident. You know with racism it is never a good idea to cry wolf. When the real thing happens, people might not take you seriously.
Revolting seems a little strong to me. I'd say the bit that overstepped the mark was threatening the bloke with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace. I expect it was just born out of frustration but it literally gave him all the ammo he needed to go after Rowley, the Met etc. Reality is he was doing something every police officer in the land will recognise - being told he can't do something, pulling the "I'm a law abiding citizen you know" card and then filming the encounter too. It's incredibly tedious. Happens at road closures, protests and 1am in the town centre every single day of the year. Truth is all this stuff is nearly impossible to get right. Politicians sit there pontificating and/or announcing their concerns from on high but they pass all the laws that make a muddle of it in the first place. I think the protests are a waste of time but they'd probably peter out if there wasn't so much attention given to them. Gideon here has single-handedly ensured next weekend's protest will have both a bigger attendance and probably a bigger police presence too. Which a cynic might think was what he wanted after they'd largely dropped out of the news this month.
What a surprise…Hamas never wants peace and don’t give a damn about “their own people”. Hamas 'moving goalposts' in hostage talks, US says - as 'they want full-scale regional war' The US has accused Hamas of "moving the goalposts" in hostage and ceasefire deal negotiations. In a press briefing, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said the militant group had made demands which Israel "moved some way to meeting" before they were changed. "It certainly does seem like Hamas is more interested in a full-scale regional war," he said, adding that it had declined a "very significant proposal" that had been tabled. Mr Miller said Washington would continue pushing for an agreement because it was in the interests of Israel, the US and the wider Middle East. "It takes two to make an agreement, and right now Hamas has signalled that they don't want an agreement," he said, saying the ball was "in their court".
But what is it they are holding out for/have rejected? Frustrating this detail is never included. They may well be the devil incarnate, evidence is they are, but let’s have the full picture.
They don’t want peace. They never want peace. They are lining their bulging pockets with the aid that’s destined for the Gazan people. They intercept aid trucks and sell the food. They intercept cement trucks aimed at rebuilding homes to use to rebuild terror tunnels. They are being looked at as saints and hero worshipped by the Turkish govt they don’t and have never wanted peace. The details are insignificant When the world realises this and starts marching on the streets against that government is the time that you will get peace and a better life for the Gazan people
On reflection you're both absolutely right and I was being a bit of an A-hole. I have written to Sir Mark to apologise and asked him to stay on
Most people say that Zionism and Judaism aren’t the same most people say that the pro pally protests in London are peaceful affairs so why is it not safe for a Jewish person to walk around near the protest when he has no pro Israel stance
You may well be right, but the details are never ‘insignificant’. Let us know what ‘reasonable proposals’ they are rejecting so the whole world can clearly see how intransigent they are being; if their rejection is that egregious then everyone can draw their own conclusion they do not want peace.
what’s your view on the wealth of the Hamas leadership? Whats your view on them selling the aid to Gazan residents? Whats your view on why Hamas would want peace? Do you truly believe that Hamas are good for the Gazan citizens?
1) they are ****s 2) they are ****s 3) they don't 4) no. However, everything Israel has done has made the possibility of eradicating them or the sentiment that fuels them next to impossible. Which, I suspect, suits Netanyahu and the hardliners just fine.
Well it turned out he didn't want to just "walk around" - in the full version the cop tells him he's seen him already getting in there and trying to cause conflict. He even offers to escort him to "walk around" safely. However he will not let him go through the cordon and walk against the march. That's reasonable. When I was working nights, back in the day, at Euston, we used to go out to the East End on a Sunday morning when the NF skinheads were marching. We stood on the side and booed them loudly. There was a line of cops there. I would not have expected the cops to allow me to go in and "walk around" against the skinheads - and to be honest I wouldn't have dared (cowardly smiley). I understand young Gidders was actually down there accompanied by around 45 pals and a film crew. Looking for confrontation, no doubt with an aim of shutting down the marches. His tale about just having innocently wandered out of the synagogue seems to be a tall one. The nearest synagogue being 2 miles away. I would suppose he's a bit disappointed he couldn't spark something more serious after all the effort. If a passing rogue marcher had given him a right hander across the chops, we would be sick of seeing the video and hearing the commentary. As it is, he's been a bit shown up.
I was not attacking you, so the virulence of your response is surprising. I did disagree with your contention that the details were not significant. Let everyone see the details of their obsessive intransigence so their moral bankruptcy is laid bare in even more obvious form. I have always stated that all players are culpable for allowing the situation to develop to such an extent that such an awful entity could have appeared as the best available option for the Gazans at the time of their election success. I am deeply concerned that similarly desperate circumstances are being created in the West Bank, almost out of conscious sight of the world during the current more obvious crisis. The warnings are there, but will they be heeded?
I apologise. I get hugely frustrated by people's double standards when it comes to this conflict. People are very happy to believe Sky News and BBC when it comes to attacking Israel (think the misreported rocket attack on Al-Ahli Arab hospital) but want full details on a closed door negotiation when Sky are clearly reporting that "Hamas has signalled they don't want an agreement" As for West Bank, similar ideology exists there too in their want to see Israel eradicated. But IDF remain within WB to keep control and both Israel and Palestinian Authority recognise each others right to govern. And life is far better for those Arabs living in WB. If you are referring to settlements then we have discussed this extensively
So you agree....on the days of the Pro Pally marches London is a no go zone for Jews. Whatever their views are on Gaza and Israel. As are many campuses at the moment. And I'm just checking, based on your derogatory tone, whether you think that's ok?
Well these Jewish people certainly don't seem to think so. I suppose ANY protest march is a no go zone for some section of society. Hunt saboteurs would not be able to toot their cause peacefully walking contrary to the countryside alliance march for example. A pro-nazi skinhead in swastika t-shirt would do well to avoid a BLM march. It's obvious. If you show up in direct opposition to the cause people are marching about, then stand on the side and have a BOOOO and a jeer and a counter-protest. That's fine. What you can't do, is go through the police cordon and start mixing it up with the opposition. That is never allowed.
