Jump to content

Recommended Posts

H, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but have you read much recent Middle Eastern history? The Arab-Israeli conflict is hardly theological in origin.


"A wish to obliterate Israel is no more outrageous than the conviction that you have the right to create your own homeland in someone else's backyard."


Do you really believe this? One the one hand genocide, on the other, a dispute about land rights created at least in part, and some would say the major part, by British indecision/deception over Palestine in the '40s?


I'm not taking sides - I'm pointing out that the default position in this country is ludicrously biased. And there are many words for people who wear kefiyehs to "show their solidarity" whilst never having opened a book on the subject in question, and "w@nker" is probably the politest.

"I'm pointing out that the default position in this country is ludicrously biased. And there are many words for people who wear kefiyehs to "show their solidarity" whilst never having opened a book on the subject in question, and "w@nker" is probably the politest."


I actually completely agree with you on this one, much in the same way that Celtic shirt wearing arseholes bleating on about ETA tend to wind me up also.


I actually know quite a few Israelis, and apart from one of them who's something of a hardliner, most of them have a strange ambivalence towards their country which are equal parts pride and shame. And most that I know personally, are of the opinion that a state based upon permanent occupation is unworkable in the long term and resolution through negotiation is something which will happen sooner or later. Interestingly the debate there is much healthier than it is here.

Maybe I'm misinformed DaveR, but the opening text of the Israeli proclamation of independence reads as follows:


"Eretz Israel [Hebrew: The Land of Israel] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.


"Exiled from their land, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and for the restoration in it of their national freedom.


"Impelled by this historic association, Jews strove in every successive generation to to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland.[...] Loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, they brought the blessing of progress to all inhabitants of the country.


"In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country."


That pretty clearly suggests to me that it was the first Zionist congress who decided that having gone walkabout, the Jewish people faniced their own state, that they were having it where God said they could, and that they were up for a fight.


Given that it's unreasonable for a non-Jewish local to wish to be ruled by Jewish laws, you can see how this can be interpreted as a pretty exsclusive arrangement. You might note that the date is well before any British agreements, and that they make pretty clear that it was their own idea.

Obviously this debate could go on and on


Suffice to say that Herzl himself was neither particularly observant nor motivated by religion, that Zionism almost since day one has been primarily a secular political/nationalist movement (just as the Arab League et al have never been Islamic movements) and that Israel is and always has been essentially a secular state.


The date of the declaration was either on the day or the day after the end of the British mandate - I can't be bothered to check - and was pretty clearly intended as an inspiration/call to arms rather than a practical political statement

Just read this:

"An adviser to the [McCain] campaign told The New York Sun that, in a speech to be

delivered in Albuquerque, N.M., the senator will call for an increase in combat

troops and the creation of a special Afghanistan tsar to coordinate policy

toward the country. "There will be a surge for Afghanistan. It will be moving

combat troops in and applying the lessons from Iraq and the strategy that was

successful in Iraq and taking that to Afghanistan," this official said."


Funny on two levels. 1, appointing a tsar to a country that lost a million people trying to get rid of the Russians is very poor use of language, and 2. The success of the surge has nowt to do with the extra troops and much more to do with talking with the enemy and paying them to stop them killing you. Frankly a very pragmatic policy which could very well be successful in Afghanistan. It's just I'm not convinced McCain seems to understand this point and seems to be advocating killing more, not fewer people. Let's hope somebody sets him right.

I hear you with the whole "tsar" thing, MP. I've got a feeling it's a meedja term though. The guys real title will be something rather dull like "Administrative Oversight Controller" but that never looks good on paper does it. "TSAR!!" on the other hand reeks of imperial presence. But, yes, the semantic implications of that one haven't really been thought through....


On a lighter note in the American campaign, the Colbert Report (like a funnier version of the Daily Show) has been running a thematic where you have to make McCain more exciting. He gave a speech behind a green background the other week and it's allowed the photoshop nerds out there to play havoc with it; with hilarious results.


Link

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But all those examples sell a wide variety of things,  and mostly they are well spread out along Lordship Lane. These two shops both sell one very specific thing, albeit in different flavours, and are just across the road from each other. I don't think you can compare the distribution of shops in Roman times to the distribution of shops in Lordship Lane in the twenty first century. Well, you can, but it doesn't feel very appropriate. Haa anybody asked the first shop how they feel? Are they happy about the "healthy competition" ?
    • ED is included in the 17 August closure set (or just possibly 15 August, depending on which part of the page you trust more) listed at https://metro.co.uk/2025/07/25/full-list-25-poundland-stores-confirmed-close-august-23753048/. Here incidentally are some snippets from their annual reports, at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02495645/filing-history. 2022: " during the period we opened 41 stores and closed 43 loss-making/under-performing stores.  At the period-end we were trading from 821 stores in the UK, IoM and ROI. ... "We renogotiated 82 leases in the year, saving on average 45% versus the prior lease agreement..." 2023: "We also continued to improve our market footprint through sourcing better store locations, opening 53 and closing 51 stores during the year." 2024:  "The ex-Wilco stores acquired in the prior year have formed a core part of this strategy to expand our store network.  We favour quality over quantity and during the period we opened 84 stores and closed 71 loss-making/under-performing ones."
    • Ha! After I posted this, I thought of lots more examples. Screwfix and the hardware store? Mrs Robinson and Jumping Bean? Chemists, plant shops, hairdressers...  the list goes on... it's good to have healthy competition  Ooooh! Two cheese shops
    • You've got a point.  Thinking Leyland and Screwfix too but this felt different.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...