I’m sorry, but you are miles off beam here. The Campaign Against Antisemitism organised the event and it is not a left wing organisation. They had already made it clear that Robinson was unwelcome. You can hardly blame them, given his extreme associations, like the Polish fascist crew he used as bodyguards. The event was not designed to promote sectarianism. That was incompatible with him being there. The Police and organisers felt his continued presence could become a public order issue and the Police decided to remove him, I think, using the same legislation they use on other disruptive protesters. Turning was completely disrespectful to Jewish people who don’t need association with extremism to put another target on their backs.
surely an upturn in short-trading should have been an immediate red flag https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67628380
It’s the who that is interesting here and what word got around. I suspect it won’t be entirely clear what was known. Attacks by Hamas are not infrequent, but this was a different level of violence, intent and savagery. People may have had rumours of it, but how explicit were they and how could they bank on this one having the dreadful impact it did and on the security failings that also happened? It’s very curious for sure, but more evidence is required.
I think we can all guess high up members of certain wealthy states in the middle East would have been the ones short settling
True, but how did they know it would be so different? And I don’t mean that in some kind of conspiracy theory way, like the fruit loops who will always claim Israel had a hand in what happens, just simply how.
Report being challenged as inaccurate now. https://news.sky.com/story/tel-aviv...ance-is-inaccurate-and-irresponsible-13023575
The Israeli Ambassador to the UK has ruled out the ‘Two State’ solution. Tzipi Hotovely suggested there was ‘absolutely no’ prospect of a Palestinian State. The UK has expressed ‘disappointment.’ On the one hand you can understand Israel’s position, post Oct 7. A Palestinian State could end up emboldening militants who brutally slaughtered so many. Would any State willingly allow the flourishing of a State that could threaten it in such a grotesque way? But it’s also hard to square, given the vital role an Israeli State plays in both the identity of and sanctuary for Jewish people. To deny others this possibility seems cruel. Given the constant settlement of Palestinian lands, it’s not easy to see what the Israeli State might imagine peace would look like going forward and where Palestinians will go. A refugee crisis seems inevitable. https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-israel-hamas-ambassador-rejects-two-state-solution/
personally don’t agree with ruling out a two state solution but feel it’s impossible to even start discussing this whilst there are hostages still being held captive and the current “negotiation party” only wants the eradication of Israel what I fail to understand is why a Palestinian state was never important or even asked for pre 67 when Gaza was in Egyptian hands and West Bank in Jordanian hands
I think the discussion needs to draw a distinction between Gaza and West Bank. There seems little to recommend about how Gaza was dealt with by Egypt before 1967, but I don't think the same can be said about the West Bank under Jordanian control. There was little impetus for a 'Palestinian State' for those living in Jordanian West Bank as the general conditions there were acceptable and the Palestinian population had equal voting rights and a chance of carving out a reasonable living. That changed dramatically upon the 1967 Israeli occupation and the situation has, on any reasonable analysis, deteriorated. To the extent that members of the Israeli government feel they can openly say that they cannot be accused of 'occupying' the West Bank because it is an integral part of 'Israel' anyway. Fingers can be pointed at Egypt for its treatment of Gaza, but I'm not sure the same is true of Jordan and the West Bank. Once the situation in Gaza reaches some form of denouement, the next battleground will be the West Bank. Extremist settlers have already been called up as 'reservists' and furnished with state-issued weapons & uniforms with which they are openly pursuing their divinely-appointed aim of reclaiming all of 'Israel'. I'm concerned that the more moderate Israeli population seems unable to prevent the increasingly extreme direction of official Israeli policy, when even the ambassador to the UK will go on record as saying there can be no '2 state solution'.
I think it’s a stretch to say the relationship between the Palestinians and Jordan is a harmonious one. Although close to half of Jordanian nationals are thought to be of Palestinian origin, Palestinians remain vastly under-represented in government. Discrimination against Palestinians in private and state-sector employment remains common and a quota system limits the number of university admissions for Palestinian youth. Jordan doesn’t really want anything to do with the Palestinians in the same way that Egypt doesn’t personally wouldn’t be concerned about the religious zealots. If there is a chance of long lasting peace with the Palestinians living in Gaza and WB and with the surrounding Arab countries, and with Iran, then the settlements will be dismantled as they were in Gaza in 2005
Well worth seeking this out: https://www.pbs.org/video/netanyahu-america-the-road-to-war-in-gaza-ahopeh/
I was referencing the lot of the West Bank under Jordanian control before 1967 as a reason why there was no huge impetus for a Palestinian state prior to the Israeli occupation…it is the latter that has created the demand for one, whatever the claimed current conditions of Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin, which is not the gist of the question you posed. And I think you’re being excessively sanguine about the amount of influence and sway the ‘zealots’ currently have compared to 2005. They are being armed and 100% protected by the entire state apparatus, including the IDF, the police & security forces.
Interesting audio mini series on BBC Sounds called The Mandates that explores the British and French Mandates in the Middle East and how they still reverberate today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m001r1h6?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
The UN passes a resolution for more aid to Gaza and words amounting to wouldn’t it be nice for a ceasefire soon. That must eventually become a call for an all out ceasefire as concerns about the death toll and the way in which the operation is being carried out mount up. Such is the Western leadership vacuum, it fell to Russia to propose a ceasefire, without even a hint of irony. Most of the World agreed with it.
Trump house guest Kanye (‘Ye’) has apologised for his previous antisemitic comments, in Hebrew. Which was nice. How does Trump then continue to get such an easy ride for having Ye on a play date, shortly after those comments, along with serious Nazi Nick Fuentes? Uncritical support for Israel appears to be a trade off that allows the antisemitism within the Trumpsphere to go unchallenged.
Serious escalations today, as Hamas deputy Saleh Al Arouri is assassinated in a Hezbollah controlled part of Beirut. With Mossad warning that anyone behind Oct 7 is a target, speculation mounts that there could be war between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel seems no longer content to live with and contain threats. Meanwhile in Iran, more than 100 people taking part in a procession towards the tomb of Qassam Soleimani an Iranian commander killed in a US drone strike, have been killed in bomb attacks. It is unclear by who, though this may be Sunni militants of the Islamic State variety.
South African case against Israel in the International Court of Justice alleging ‘genocide’ to be advanced at The Hague tonight. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67922346
Does the South African case mimic their case against the genocide of muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang by China? Or have the South Africans based it on their case over the “cultural genocide” of Buddhist Tibet by China?
or are they being paid off as a country to do this 100 days and the hostages are still not home #bringthemhome
do you not believe it might be in the regions best interest for people to call out Hamas, and Iran, for their ongoing atrocities which is the cause of all the ongoing instability in the region when people stop with the nonsensical tropes of apartheid, genocide, occupation et al and look at the wider picture then Israel may actually listen. Hostages were taken but posters supporting the babies, the children the women are constantly ripped down. In a sea of hatred it’s difficult to listen to anything but hate
No, not when it's completely unwarranted. To use the term genocide is a disgusting insult to millions who have been killed in real genocides. This country is full of misinformation and hate, you had people in central london chanting for the Houthis yesterday - one of the most disgusting terrorist groups in the world. Israel makes every single effort not to harm civilians (I would know this better than most) - rather difficult when fighting a terrorist organisation embedded into civilian life who WANT as many civilian deaths as possible + lie about about numbers and use their own as human shields. No other country would react any differently - but I can assure you the US and UK would have taken far less care in civilian casualties, as proven by pretty much every conflict in the middle east post 2000 having far higher civilian to figher fatality ratios. Let's not forget 9000 of the "23000" are Hamas fighters, lets not forget the 500+ killed at Al Shifa hospital before Hamas realised it was an Islamic Jihad rocket and it became between 10-20.
That’s not, in itself, a justification for how the war is being fought and what its conclusions may be. This notion that Israel makes every effort to avoid civilian casualties is an illusion. It’s simply not borne out by the outcomes. And yes, we’ve seen the US and UK equal or surpass that in Iraq or even worse from the Russians in Syria and Ukraine. Not sure how that helps. Israel suffered a desperately cruel and unforgivable attack on Oct 7. It has every right to target Hamas and everyone who backs it. Unfortunately the proximity in which Israel/Palestinians live is not simply an overhead for civilians to bear. You don’t need to quibble about figures to know that thousands of civilians have died and humanitarian disaster beckons. I despise Iran and its leadership of hateful theocratic basket cases, but that doesn’t prevent concern about Israel’s conduct and objectives.
This is a very difficult time for Israel to consider the forming of a Palestinian State. Even with the best will in the World (and Netanyahu is far from that) the first role of the State is to protect its citizens and there would be genuine questions about whether any Palestinian entity with remnants of Hamas, backed by Iran, would be a peaceful neighbour. Oct 7th cannot happen again. Palestinian statehood would include some very difficult decisions for Israel about land that it has occupied. You can see why Israel won’t go there now when it is at war and needs national unity. And yet to have peaceful neighbours there must be the path to peace and that must include Palestinian statehood and the protection for Palestinians that Israelis rightfully expect. It has to be down to the international community to guarantee safety and security. Unfortunately that is too divided.
I'm unconvinced that Netanyahu (and the various factions supporting him from far more extreme positions) had any serious intention to work towards any sort of two-state solution even without 7th October, which has given him all the excuse he needs.
Which may have some relevance to the desperation experienced by people feeling constrained to implicitly support equally unpleasant factions.
Netanyahu, in his current political situation, cannot be seen supporting a Palestinian state solution as otherwise his tenuous coalition would fall apart. But, post war, I hope he’s dead in politics anyway the issues will be: who do Israel negotiate with? Israel will never negotiate with a terror organisation calling for their destruction and still holding babies, alongside others, as hostages What borders do you carve up for the state and the age old question of the settlements Circa 600k Arabs were displaced in the run up to 1948 (as were over 500k Jews from surrounding countries) but that number now stands at over 5m Palestinians living across other regions who would most likely want to resettle back in a state. But how do they get housed? The rise of Hamas started with Israel’s evacuation from Gaza. The absolute key question is how does Israel guarantee its safety and ensure the two states live cordially side by side? Who polices it? how to retain the holiest site for Jews and third holiest for Muslims in jerusalem? and that’s before you talk about water, power, sea, Arabs working in Israel etc etc the situation is far far more complex then let’s create a two state solution based on 1967 borders
At no point has anyone suggested it is not complex. You list very salient issues, understandably through an Israeli filter. Some may have a different emphasis if viewed through a Palestinian filter. Who do Israel negotiate with? Are you saying there are no Palestinians willing to accept the continued existence of an Israeli state? And with whom should the Palestinians negotiate when it is very clear significant elements within Israel have no interest in allowing a Palestinian State ever to come into being? It is no longer accurate to portray these extremist elements as representing 'unfortunate minority viewpoints'. They are now central to many aspects of the state within in Israel. Why should any Palestinian negotiators sit around a table with people who deny their right to their own state? Why were Israelis settled in Gaza? Why was Palestinian frustration so deep-rooted they were willing to consider voting for Hamas in the first place, even if many now regret that? The question of guaranteeing security for BOTH states in any 2-state solution existed even before the current crisis. (Again, trying to understand why actions occur implies no support for any such actions). Yes, it's complex, but so it was before October 2023; does that mean no effort is ever made to find a solution? 'Borders and settlements' are indeed inextricably linked. When you mention '1967 borders', I assume you mean those that existed before the 1967 war, meaning West Bank is Palestinian territory? 'Age old question of the settlements' is a rather anodyne way of expressing settlement of Palestinian lands (viewed as illegal under international law) by avowedly extreme Israelis, often established by forcible ejection of Palestinians, maintained by force, protected by Israeli police and military, with the apparent aim of making it impossible for any contiguously coherent Palestinian state to be created, and for many with the intent of achieving the end of ensuring the ultimate borders of the state of Israel correspond with those of the historic 'Kingdom of Israel'. As the spread of these settlements has effectively been supported by various Israeli governments, is it realistic to believe they can be simply 'disbanded'? And if not, why should Palestinians accept the continued existence of illegal occupation of their territory? The comment about Palestinians maybe wanting to return to their 'new state' is valid, but has similarity with how Jews have settled in Israel after the creation of THEIR 'new state'. Would Palestinians not have the same right?
