Hamas attacks Israel.

[Nearly Sane]

Utterly farcical today in the Commons.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68362405

[Nearly Sane]

And while the suffering goes on in Gaza, the House of Commons makes this all about themselves.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68368320

[Nearly Sane]

And now the Eurovision row




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68379762

[SteveH]

And now the Eurovision row
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68379762

Judging by the leaked lyrics, it should in any case be banned for pretentiousness and illiteracy.

[Nearly Sane]

Judging by the leaked lyrics, it should in any case be banned for pretentiousness and illiteracy.

Slightly disappointed it wasn't Boom Bang A Bang

[SteveH]

Slightly disappomted it wasn't Boom Bang A Bang

Quite. Bring back the boom bang-a-bang/ oompah oompah/ tiddle iddle pom days, I say.

[Nearly Sane]

Quite. Bring back the boom bang-a-bang/ oompah oompah/ tiddle iddle pom days, I say.

Unlikely to be A Little Peace.

[Nearly Sane]

Unlikely to be A Little Peace.

Though I suppose the question is whether any one will be able to sing about who was defeated and who won the war, though I doubt there will be those who feel like they win when they lose

[SteveH]

Judging by the leaked lyrics, it should in any case be banned for pretentiousness and illiteracy.

Having now read the complete lyrics, I must say that although they are rubbish artistically, I don't think it should be banned. The only conceivable reference too the Hamas attack that I can see is "October". but that's much too vague and general to justify a ban. Rain is not unknown in October!

[Nearly Sane]

Having now read the complete lyrics, I must say that although they are rubbish artistically, I don't think it should be banned. The only conceivable reference too the Hamas attack that I can see is "October". but that's much too vague and general to justify a ban. Rain is not unknown in October!

Israel getting their retaliation in first


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68379762

[Nearly Sane]

Charlotte Church and The Powers That Be.

I think it's possible to understand that 'From the River to the Sea' may have, and be taken to have diffetent meani gs, and that those who object to it should not simply be dismissed. I'd also think that it's possible to read the comment from Church below very similarly to the readings of Anderson and Braverman, and think that they were being Islamophobic, and Church is being anti-semitic.

"It was a beautiful, beautiful event. But unfortunately the powers that be can't have that. [They] can't have such a powerful symbol of resistance as what we worked towards on Saturday."



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68404269

[SteveH]

Charlotte Church and The Powers That Be.

I think it's possible to understand that 'From the River to the Sea' may have, and be taken to have diffetent meani gs, and that those who object to it should not simply be dismissed. I'd also think that it's possible to read the comment from Church below very similarly to the readings of Anderson and Braverman, and think that they were being Islamophobic, and Church is being anti-semitic.

"It was a beautiful, beautiful event. But unfortunately the powers that be can't have that. [They] can't have such a powerful symbol of resistance as what we worked towards on Saturday."



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68404269

Good for CC! I always did like her; now I like her even more. The slogan's most obvious meaning is a call for equal right for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. It is not intrinsically antisemitic, though if it's interpreted as a call for a new,, secular, democratic state with equal right for all religions and ethnicities to replace Israel and the occupied territories, that's also fine with me - I've long believed in it, though I grudgingly accept that the two-state solution is the best that has any chance of happening. As you will notice, I've changed my personal message as a tiny act of solidarity with CC and Labour MP Andy McDonald, who had the whip removed for using the phrase.

[Nearly Sane]

Good for CC! I always did like her; now I like her even more. The slogan's most obvious meaning is a call for equal right for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. It is not intrinsically antisemitic, though if it's interpreted as a call for a new,, secular, democratic state with equal right for all religions and ethnicities to replace Israel and the occupied territories, that's also fine with me - I've long believed in it, though I grudgingly accept that the two-state solution is the best that has any chance of happening. As you will notice, I've changed my personal message as a tiny act of solidarity with CC and Labour MP Andy McDonald, who had the whip removed for using the phrase.

I think ignoring that anti semitism has often been based on the idea of a Jewish conspiracy which would allow them to be characterised as 'the powers that be' is at best stupidity.

[Nearly Sane]

And while the suffering goes on in Gaza, the House of Commons makes this all about themselves.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68368320

And the mess continues


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68405648

[Nearly Sane]

'Palestinian Authority PM Shtayyeh resigns citing new 'reality' in Gaza'. I think more symbolic rather real change but may show willing to US ideas.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68406546

[Nearly Sane]

'Aaron Bushnell: US airman dies after setting himself on fire outside Israeli embassy in Washington'

Tragic, and its utter pointlessness makes it more tragic.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68405119

[Nearly Sane]

Surely protestors will think that while the suffering goes on in Gaza, they may have made their point but nothing has been done about it?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pro-palestine-protesters-have-made-their-point-and-should-scale-back-demonstrations-says-james-cleverly/ar-BB1j0kTW

[jeremyp]

The slogan's most obvious meaning is a call for equal right for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories.

Absolute nonsense. "From the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), Palestine will be free" means no Jewish state in the Levant. It is a call to genocide. That's why Charlotte Church was wrong to use it.

[Nearly Sane]

Absolute nonsense. "From the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), Palestine will be free" means no Jewish state in the Levant. It is a call to genocide. That's why Charlotte Church was wrong to use it.

I think that that's the perception by some. I don't think it can be stated as a fact that that is its meaning. It certainly wasn't the intention of Church and those using it, though I think they were at least stupid not to understand the complexities of the situation.

[SteveH]

Absolute nonsense. "From the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), Palestine will be free" means no Jewish state in the Levant. It is a call to genocide. That's why Charlotte Church was wrong to use it.

Absolute nonsense yourself. Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all would be a good thing, and has nothing too do with genocide. There is no mention or implication of killing or displacing Jewish Israelis.

[Nearly Sane]

Absolute nonsense yourself. Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all would be a good thing, and has nothing too do with genocide. There is no mention or implication of killing or displacing Jewish Israelis.

There's no mention in it of 'Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all' either.

[SteveH]

There's no mention in it of 'Getting rid of Israel as currently constituted and replacing it with a secular democratic state with equal right for all' either.

It's a valid interpretation, which genocide isn't. All it specifically says is that all Palestinians in Israel and the illegally occupied territories should be free. How can any reasonable person object to that?

[Nearly Sane]

It's a valid interpretation, which genocide isn't. All it specifically says is that all Palestinians in Israel and the illegally occupied territories should be free. How can any reasonable person object to that?

And those who perceive it as a threat would say the opposite to you.

[SteveH]

And those who perceive it as a threat would say the opposite to you.

Those who perceive it as a threat are wrong. How can a call for freedom for an oppressed group be perceived as threatening?

[Nearly Sane]

Those who perceive it as a threat are wrong.

Why are you right, and why are they wrong?