Thug

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

Because "ceasefire" in the terms being discussed is only realistically a request for one side to stop. If both sides were happy to stop trying to kill each other, then there wouldn't be discussion. 

But given Hamas have explicitly said that they won't er...cease firing, there's not really much point in asking for one is there? There are no diplomatic avenues to pursue that will cause them to stop firing rockets at Israel. So it's not a case of objecting to it, it's a case of understanding that it's not an option that is on the table, outside of making people feel better about themselves by calling for it as a solution. 

I think we’re just going over the same ground again and again.

There’s nothing wrong in what you say here, but it’s an endless cycle.

Hamas say they won’t stop.  Israel continue killing civilians.  Hamas say they won’t stop, Israel continue killing civilians.

We have already established that Hamas do not care for the civilians.  The civilians are the ones that are suffering, not Hamas.

I can understand Israel’s position, but not Starmer’s. 

That’s the current discussion, no?

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

You (and others) have said/impied it's (in this case) lobbying. I don't think in this case it actually is. It's something different. Lobbying is when an individual or company or body tries to persuade an MP or Parliament to support a particular policy or path of action or campaign.

What a donation to a leadership campaign is, is something different from that. But you're right, clearly if an individual or company or body donates a chunk of cash to an MP's campaign for a position, or their office costs, or similar, they might just feel (like giving to a good cause) "I want that person to succeed because I support their stance on [whatever]" or more cynically "if I give that MP a donation, they might look upon my company or my interests more favourably in the future". It can be very murky.

But in this discussion about Labour's stance on Israel, there's nothing been provided to support that Starmer's been "bought off".

You’re right.

One can only speculate, unless you have absolute evidence.

I admit I’ve not read all the posts, so maybe I’m wrong, but I think all I’ve read is speculation?  
 

I think people have speculated that Starmer could either have received payments for a favourable position on certain agendas, or he has been rewarded for his favourable position on said agendas.

Pure speculation, unless of course by some magic this can be proved.

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

And that's correct, or at least part of the picture. It's also to assist our own UK intelligence gathering on terrorist group activities. What it isn't is helping Israel kill civilians.

You what?

Thats like the getaway driver saying he was just trying to learn a route to help him in his taxi job, and had nothing at all to do with the bank robbery.

1 minute ago, meregreen said:

That’s not true though is it. The argument has been made many times. A ceasefire would enableHamas to regroup and repeat the atrocity of 7th October. The infrastructure of terror they have built needs to be completely destroyed. Now you can argue the rights and wrongs of that theory, but you can’t claim it hasn’t been offered.

The discussion is not about the merits of a ceasefire.  It’s about possible explanations as to why a human rights lawyer would not only not support it, but actively object to it.

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Well, this specific case aside, isn’t that exactly how good lobbying works?

Yes, some tories will take an envelope of cash to carry out specific tasks. But ‘legitimate’ lobbying is exactly the subtle, slow burn, long term favourable conditions you can reasonably expect your money, a few international flights a few years ago, and a ticket to a cup final is supposed to bring.

Unless you think bad lobbying is cash for gigging political bitches, and good lobbying is actually blind trust philanthropy.

 

It’s also the undocumented future promises, nudges and winks, nominations etc. that can’t be proven until no one gives a **** 50 years down the line.

The consequence is a few raised eyebrows, a few ‘I knew it!’s  and a load of ‘who the hell were these people anyway?’s.

unfortunately that’s how life works.

2 minutes ago, meregreen said:

There’s a good argument to be made for a ceasefire on humanitarian grounds. Once people start bandying around crackpot theories . They will simply undermine their argument. Most lobbying, donations etc to Labour come from the Trade Unions, plenty of sympathy for the Palestinian cause there. 

Thats the issue though.

There’s a good argument for a ceasefire, which is not being supported for whatever unknown cause.  
 

I guess people (over?)stretch for explanations.

You have to admit, it does make you scratch your head as to what motives there could be not to support a ceasefire.  To most with no vested interest, there just doesn’t seem to be a valid explanation - corruption is the natural thing to point at.

10 hours ago, R.Bear said:

Randomly thought of him today and went to see how he was getting on.

15 games, 0 goals, 0 assists 

And reading one of their forums, he’s not really doing much else either…

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I get the intelligence and special forces argument, but at the same time, when did anyone ever succeed with this strategy?

The world’s largest and most powerful military alliance took two invasions and 10 years to get Bin Laden, ISIS is still terrorising Iraq and Syria and The Taliban is stronger than ever after SEAL team 6, SAS and most European SOF teams camped in their country for 10 years.

I don’t think Israel has the military utility to take out the leadership of Hamas as Iran has the next leader lined up if they do. Hamas is defeated with prosperity and opportunity. Make Gaza a prosperous nation with jobs and rights and Hamas will go back to Iran. Isolate Iran and decapitate their bases abroad, and try to remove suffering for the people they are using as human shields for their despicable state. Palestine/Hamas is the latest iteration of Irans ‘axis of resistance’ where millions have died as a result.

This is bang on.

it'll take a long time to come to fruition, but this is the answer.

It’s a lot easier to sell the idea of resistance to oppressed, unemployed people full of the feelings of injustice.  When there’s not a lot to live for, you’re happy not to be alive.

People with jobs, and a decent standard of living and dignity have a lot more to lose - and subsequently don’t want to lose it.

It would be a very, very slow solution - You’re looking at several generations.  And in the meantime, there will be ongoing pockets of ‘resistance’ or mischief makers on both sides.  
 

October 7th should never happen again.  For the sake of both sides.

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

Genuinely not trying to make you foolish, I read your post as trying to say something completely different.

Ok, fair enough.

Easily done.

i declare a ceasefire

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Really? That was your point? Oh ok. It’s really not how that confused mess came across to me

Wow.

I quoted the guy.

Then gave links to what ceasefire meant.  Where, quite literally, the source I linked and quoted said ‘a ceasefire, also known as a truce or armistice’

Then I posted a dictionary quote of what the word indefinitely means - because the poor chap didn’t know what it meant.

It could not be clearer.

Give up trying to make me look the fool, it’s backfiring.

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

If only you'd read past the first line...

 

I did.

If only you’d bothered to read what I was replying to.

1 hour ago, meregreen said:

ceasefire is not indefinite, that would be an armistice

A ceasefire is the same as an armistice.  That was my reply.

What exactly is the relevance of what a ceasefire may or may not be used for?

A ceasefire may be used by one side to take out the trash, and the other to paint a replica of the Mona Lisa.  And what? 

Someone says that a ceasefire is not an armistice.  I show that they’re the same.  You come along and give examples of what a ceasefire may be used for….

What’s your point?

In fact, I don’t want to know your point.  I suggest let’s get this thread back on topic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice

An armistice is a formal agreement of warring parties to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, as it may constitute only a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace.^[1] It is derived from the Latin arma, meani

48 minutes ago, meregreen said:

A ceasefire is not indefinite, that would be an armistice. A humanitarian pause can be any length the combatants can agree on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceasefire
 

A ceasefire (also known as a truce or armistice^[1]), 
 

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/ceasefire
 

a time when enemies agree to stop fighting, usually while a way is found to end the fighting permanently

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/indefinite

When Shabana Mahmood  representing 70,000 Muslim votes doesn’t vote for a ceasefire, I’m not going blame any Labour politician for voting how they did.

I thoroughly applaud any of them that did though.

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

Isn't the two problems with this position (a) what happens to the Israeli hostages currently in Palestine, and (b) haven't Hamas explicitly said that they don't want a ceasefire and want to carry on firing rockets at Israel?

If a "ceasefire" happens, what is the correct course of action when Hamas don't er....cease firing?

edit: there's a possibility that this is for a different thread.

Indeed for a different thread.

I was merely pointing out that a ceasefire and humanitarian pause are not the same thing.  Not arguing about what was appropriate.

Just now, blandy said:

So enlighten me - what's the difference?

My take is that a ceasefire is "stop fighting", but either side or both (as we know from the past) can or has either ignored, partially ignored or ended the ceasefire and resumed hostilities, whereas a humanitarian pause is , er, "stop fighting", but either side, or both, can at some unspecified point resume hostilities. Semantics to me, as applied to this conflict.

A ceasefire is to end the current hostilities indefinitely.  You’re not wrong when you say hostilities may restart again prob a matter of months, but the idea would be that it wouldn’t.

A humanitarian pause (as suggested in this case) is a ?4-12? Hour window of opportunity for the people to a drink of water before they get bombed to bits.

2 hours ago, blandy said:

They’ve all called either for a ceasefire or used a different term, like ”humanitarian pause”, which apart from semantics is essentially the same thing

You are WAY off the mark here.

it’s absolutely not even close to being the same thing.

(the rest of your post I agree with)

1 hour ago, jimmygreaves said:

Why do they give these words removed a platform, why do they celebrate them?

Farage is responsible, in no small part, for perhaps the most poisonous political landscape in the past 50 or 60 years.

Because no one would watch a bunch of nice people mingling.

1 minute ago, jim said:

Thanks, no not sorted yet. I’ll take a look at those appreciate the advice.

Does sage 50 run as a service, or does it run as an application?

On 06/11/2023 at 16:55, jim said:

Cheers I'm probably better off with something like any viewer/team viewer as I've only got three people who will need it.

I don’t know if you ever solved this, but another option is WireGuard.  If you want to make it very easy, you can use Tailscale, which is based on WireGuard, and allows up to 3 free users.  Makes setting up a vpn an absolute breeze.

2 hours ago, meregreen said:

We’ll have to disagree on that then. To me it’s war. In the worst possible environment, a heavily built up populated city. If that rather narrow UN definition stands. Then every war in history was Genocide. Can you give me an example of a war where large numbers of innocents didn’t die. It’s war, there is no clean version of it.

You best remind these people that there’s a war going on

https://www.cxtvlive.com/live-camera/tel-aviv

Above link takes you to a live webcam of people surfing and relaxing on a beach at the Carlton, Tel Aviv.

There are many webcam streams available from Israel showing life going on pretty much as normal.

Here’s a link to get a flight from Manchester to the middle of your ‘warzone’ day after tomorrow.

https://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/uk/tela/231114/231121/?adultsv2=1&cabinclass=economy&childrenv2=&ref=home&rtn=1&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false
 

36 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Are Hamas reporting injuries?

 

Well, it’s a very confusing situation.  A couple of days ago I heard some ?Israeli? Pro-Israel uk politician? (I forget who exactly) Refuting the numbers of deaths/wounded.  Saying that these numbers were being exaggerated by Hamas.  The interviewer then said that the numbers were being reported by the Health Ministry, not by Hamas.  And the person said ‘But Hamas control the ministry.  These numbers should be ignored as unreliable.’ Not direct quote, but words to that effect.

Strangely enough, ever since then I don’t hear the number of deaths reported any more.  Just ‘the number of deaths according to Hamas’.

So, in answer to your question, I didn’t think it was Hamas that reported the deaths/wounded - I thought it was the health ministry, but I have since been ‘corrected’ and I now see that it is indeed Hamas who lie about the numbers who are dead.

I think it’s actually 5 dead, 4 of whom were Hamas leaders.  None wounded.  Damn those Hamas guys, had me fooled for a bit.

35 minutes ago, sne said:

Yeah but to be fair on Israel they did drop pamphlets telling people to leave before bombing them so who is really to blame here.

Hamas prob counting these leaflets as bombs.  
The majority of the ‘injuries’ that Hamas are reporting are paper cuts.

10 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Semantics. When massive forces are gathering on your borders readying for an invasion, then it’s probably a smart move to stop them.

Oh, so they DID start it.  Thanks for clarifying.

5 minutes ago, meregreen said:

No.

At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.^[83] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first, claiming that it was a preemptive strike in the face of a planned invasion by Egypt.^[83][33]On the other hand, the Arab view was that it was unjustified to attack Egypt.^[164][165] Many commentators consider the war as the classic case of anticipatory attack in self-defense.^[166][167]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War