|
Post by ARENA on Oct 18, 2023 7:01:29 GMT
War is never the way.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Oct 18, 2023 12:13:33 GMT
The thread title gives the context, unless you mean war is never the way any time any place. If we leave the "any time any place" question to another time the question comes into rather sharp focus. Depending on who you listen to, EITHER Israel was founded in 1948 in a country run until then by the UK with, among others, a transient population of arabs and a lot of Jewish Kibbutz settlers; OR or was founded in 1948 on land which had a permanent predominantly arab population and a minority of recent Jewish Kibbutz settlers. Those two contradictory foundation stories determine the context for the land today, which have now expanded to include parts of what had been Egyptian Northern Sinai and what had been the kingdom of Jordan to the west of the Jordan river and what had been Syrian on the Golan Heights. Fortunately, neither party ever owned Cyprus so the Cypriot problem is unconnected though equally intractable. There are a large number of definitions of what the land and the people get called, what bits of the land get called, we need neutral terms for the thread. We could say there is one country, Israel, which holds effective sovereignty over the entirety of the land. There are several peoples: those descended from the arabs displaced from their property in what is now Israel by the events of 1948 which your title would call Palestinian; those descended from the permanent Jewish population and the more recent Jewish Kibbutz settlers and the post-1948 Jewish immigrants from the worldwide diaspora who all have a right to nationality and residence in Israel; and there's also a couple of million people who might be primarily descended from Bedouin arabs and are now called Israeli arabs, but I'm getting out of my depth there. Israel recognizes the Israeli arabs and the Jewish residents as citizens of Israel and allows them to vote for their national government, the Knesset. Israel does not recognize the Palestinians as citizens and refuses them a vote for the Knesset. The Palestinians have residency rights only in the Gaza Strip or the arab areas of the West Bank. Many also have dual nationality which allows them more freedom of movement than those who don't. The Palestinians consequently have no nation. Since 1948 they have insisted they should have a nation and that it should consist of a proportion of the land currently claimed by Israel. The proportion runs from a small bit to all of it. The government of Israel has on occasion negotiated with various Palestinian leaders and discussed at one stage the possibility of a Two State solution to the long-term problem. The current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has consistently kick the Two State discussions into the long grass while expanding Jewish enclaves into previously arab areas, chiefly on the West Bank. The problem with every Two State solution is that Israel insists on holding effective sovereignty over the entirety of the land even after such a division into two administratively independent areas. Any state called Palestine created on the present extent of the land would have no control over its foreign or defence policy and no army, navy or air force, and no open border with the remainder of the land. What it might gain would be a seat at the United Nations, but none of this is even remotely possible while the Likud party runs the country. So, for those who consider themselves Palestinian, there is no way toward independence that relies on the goodwill and flexibility of Israel, and in practice they are entirely correct in that assumption. They are locked away in closed enclaves whose borders are closed and controlled by the armed forces of Israel, the IDF. They have been seeking independence continuously for 75 years and they are no closer to it now than they ever have been. The government of Israel has bad foreign relations with a number of countries, mostly in the Middle East, chief among whom is Iran which treats Israel as a local proxy for the USA. It is useful for the government of Iran to have foreign enemies just as it is useful to any other government in most of the the world to have foreign enemies. Israel very helpfully joins in by denouncing Iran at every opportunity and murdering the odd Iranian on his home turf just to show they can. Iran reacts by funding extremists among the Palestinians - that is, Palestinians who do not like the status quo and see violence as their only lever of influence. They recognize Israel has conditioned reflexes which inevitably respond on demand and see this as their only means of influencing Israel's position regarding Palestinian autonomy. It's possible that you see the position of Hamas as one of war, but Hamas doesn't represent a sovereign state. Hamas is a criminal organization run by criminals in a land where the law is the law of Israel, which Palestinians have no democratic means of influencing. I doubt the word "war" can be applied to their law-breaking, though undoubtedly many people in Hamas should be jailed for their criminal actions. Israel, on the other hand, has declared itself at war. It's also well on its way to breaching internationally enforced laws relating to the conduct of war as it applies to civilians. I agree with you entirely that war is never the way. I also think adding to the picture helps to understand what it means in practical terms.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Oct 18, 2023 13:14:16 GMT
It may be that you would feel the following observation to be irrelevant and inconsequential, but I quote from Wikipedia:
Five years later he was President of the Irish Republic. To a very large extent, the war over the Republic of Ireland was entirely due to the intransigent position of the United Kingdom which turned down Gladstone's solution several times between 1886 and 1893. The parallels with Israel strike me as fairly plain. Few people actually enjoyed De Valera's company as far as I can tell - I'm certain I wouldn't have - but he'd had a hard life and every reason to be nasty.
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Oct 18, 2023 15:10:45 GMT
Good post above. Thanks.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Oct 19, 2023 9:15:56 GMT
I hope this might extend discussion within the thread. If anyone feels the length or the involvement of an AI are problematic, please let me know. I've been considering the 75-year period immediately prior to the armed rebellion which led to the formation of the Irish Republic, and the equivalent period of Palestinians seeking statehood. Clearly there are many differences. Please discuss whatever parallels you can distinguish.Certainly, the quest for statehood in both Ireland and Palestine has been characterized by complex histories, multifaceted grievances, and prolonged struggles. While the specific details, actors, and causes differ significantly, there are some broad parallels that can be drawn between the two. It's important to approach such a comparison with caution and a recognition of the unique aspects of each situation. That said, here are some parallels: Colonial Legacy and Foreign Control: - Ireland: The island of Ireland was under English and then British control for centuries. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw increased demands for Irish home rule or independence from Britain, culminating in the 1916 Easter Rising and the subsequent Irish War of Independence.
- Palestine: The region was under Ottoman rule for centuries before falling under British control after World War I with the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine. The Mandate period saw rising tensions between Jewish and Arab communities, and calls for independence and statehood from both sides.
Religious and Identity-Based Tensions: - Ireland: One of the main dividing lines in Ireland's quest for independence was between Catholics (mostly nationalists) and Protestants (mostly unionists). The legacy of this divide still impacts Northern Ireland today.
- Palestine: The issue of Palestinian statehood is deeply entwined with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which itself has roots in religious, ethnic, and national identities – primarily between Jewish and Arab Muslim communities.
Armed Resistance and Militant Groups: - Ireland: Various armed groups, most notably the Irish Republican Army (IRA), sought to achieve Irish independence through armed resistance.
- Palestine: Various Palestinian factions, such as Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), have engaged in armed resistance against Israeli rule.
Partition and Territorial Division: - Ireland: The island of Ireland was partitioned in 1921, creating Northern Ireland (which remained part of the UK) and what would later become the Republic of Ireland.
- Palestine: The 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed the division of Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Subsequent wars and peace processes have further altered territorial realities.
International Involvement: - Ireland: The Irish question often drew international attention, especially from the United States, which had a large Irish diaspora.
- Palestine: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a focal point of international diplomacy for decades, with involvement from the US, Russia, European countries, and various regional actors.
Diaspora and External Support: - Ireland: The Irish diaspora, especially in the US, played a significant role in supporting the cause of Irish independence.
- Palestine: Palestinian diaspora communities worldwide have been active in advocating for Palestinian rights and statehood.
While these parallels exist, it's crucial to understand the unique histories, nuances, and contexts that characterize each struggle. The root causes, key events, and outcomes have been shaped by distinct historical, social, and geopolitical factors. Is it the case that in neither conflict was world opinion at all sympathetic to the sovereign powers immediately involved? Could you give snapshots which demonstrate or refute that?Both the Irish struggle for independence from Britain and the Palestinian quest for statehood against Israel's backdrop have garnered international attention, and world opinion has varied over time, across countries, and among different segments of populations. It's an oversimplification to suggest that world opinion was uniformly unsympathetic to the sovereign powers (Britain in the Irish context and Israel in the Palestinian context). Here's a closer look: Ireland and Britain: Sympathetic to Britain: - Within the British Empire: Many within the broader British Empire, especially in the dominions like Canada and Australia, were unsympathetic to the Irish cause, viewing it through the lens of loyalty to the Crown and Empire.
- During WWI: At the onset of the 1916 Easter Rising, some segments of world opinion viewed the rebellion as a betrayal, given that Britain was deeply involved in World War I at the time.
Sympathetic to Ireland: - United States: The US had a significant Irish diaspora, which played a crucial role in garnering sympathy for the Irish cause. The tales of famine, eviction, and British misrule from earlier decades had already created a reservoir of sympathy.
- Post-Easter Rising: The execution of the Easter Rising leaders by the British sparked outrage and shifted opinion in many quarters more favorably towards the Irish nationalists.
Palestine and Israel: - Sympathetic to Israel:
- Post-Holocaust Sentiment: The immediate post-WWII period saw immense sympathy for Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, leading to international support for a Jewish homeland.
- Cold War Dynamics: Throughout the Cold War, Israel was often viewed favorably by Western nations, especially the US, due to geopolitical alignments.
- Terrorist Attacks: Acts of terror or violence by Palestinian groups sometimes shifted sympathy towards Israel, especially when civilian casualties were involved.
Sympathetic to Palestinians: - Decolonization and Anti-Imperialism: As former colonies gained independence after WWII, there was a growing sympathy for anti-colonial movements, including the Palestinian cause.
- Humanitarian Concerns: Reports of civilian casualties, displacement, and conditions in refugee camps over the years have generated significant sympathy for the Palestinian cause in many quarters.
- United Nations: Various resolutions and votes at the UN have shown significant international support for Palestinian rights and statehood.
In both scenarios, public opinion varied widely based on the time frame, geopolitical events, media portrayal, and other factors. Both Britain and Israel did have their share of international support in various phases of the conflicts, but they also faced criticism and opposition in other periods. Discuss the contribution made to events by labeling the rebels terrorists. That, again, is common to both struggles.Indeed, labeling groups or individuals as "terrorists" is a powerful political and rhetorical tool. It carries with it both legal implications and considerable normative weight, potentially delegitimizing the grievances or demands of those labeled as such. Here's a discussion on how the labeling of rebels as "terrorists" influenced the events in both the Irish and Palestinian struggles: Ireland: - Delegitimization of the Cause: By labeling Irish rebels as "terrorists," British authorities sought to paint the Irish struggle as one driven by criminal elements, rather than legitimate political demands or historical grievances.
- Justification for Repression: The label justified harsh measures against suspected rebels. After the 1916 Easter Rising, for instance, many of the leaders were swiftly executed—a move that the British government justified by portraying the rebels as traitors and threats to the empire, especially during wartime.
- Counterproductive Outcomes: Ironically, these repressive measures often backfired. The execution of the Easter Rising leaders, for example, transformed them into martyrs in the eyes of many Irish people, thereby galvanizing support for the cause of independence.
- Long-term Impact: The "terrorist" label had lasting repercussions. It cast a long shadow over the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and its subsequent incarnations throughout the 20th century, especially during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland.
Palestine: - Delegitimization of the Cause: Labeling Palestinian armed groups as "terrorists" has been a strategy used by Israel to portray the Palestinian resistance as illegitimate, thereby sidelining their national and human rights claims.
- Justification for Military Action: The "terrorist" label has been used by Israel to justify various military operations in the West Bank and Gaza, often resulting in significant civilian casualties. These operations are framed as essential security measures to protect Israeli civilians from "terrorist" threats.
- Impact on Peace Processes: The label complicates peace negotiations. Israeli authorities often cite the presence of "terrorist" groups as a reason to doubt the commitment of Palestinian leadership to peace, even if those groups aren't representative of the entirety of the Palestinian people or its leadership.
- Global Implications: Especially after the 9/11 attacks in the US, the global "War on Terror" narrative further entrenched the "terrorist" label when applied to certain Palestinian factions. This has implications for international support, diplomacy, and aid.
In both contexts, the "terrorist" label is not merely a descriptive term but a powerful instrument with significant political, social, and military implications. While it's used to discredit and dehumanize, it can also galvanize support for the labeled group among communities that see them as freedom fighters rather than terrorists. The line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" is often in the eye of the beholder, influenced by political loyalties, historical narratives, and media portrayals. One major propaganda focus on both sides is the condition of Gaza and the poverty of Irish Catholics beyond the Pale. Can comparisons be drawn there too?The conditions in Gaza and the historical poverty of Irish Catholics, especially those beyond the Pale, are significant aspects of both the Palestinian and Irish narratives. They serve as symbols of broader grievances, systemic discrimination, and the consequences of prolonged conflict or marginalization. Here are some comparisons: Historical Context: - Beyond the Pale in Ireland: "The Pale" referred to the area around Dublin that was directly under English control in the late medieval period. Beyond this region, English control was limited. Over time, especially with the plantation system, Catholics, mainly in the north and west of Ireland, faced dispossession, discrimination, and economic marginalization. This poverty was a direct result of systemic English and later British policies aimed at consolidating control and Anglicizing Ireland.
- Gaza Strip: The Gaza Strip's current situation is a result of historical events, including the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the subsequent displacement of Palestinian refugees. The territory has faced various challenges, including Israeli and Egyptian blockades, internal Palestinian political divisions, and repeated military conflicts.
Points of Comparison: - Economic Hardship: Both regions experienced significant economic hardship. For Irish Catholics beyond the Pale, it was due to discriminatory land policies, economic marginalization, and periodic famines. For Gaza, the Israeli-Egyptian blockade, internal Palestinian disputes, and destruction from recurrent military conflicts have stymied economic development.
- Symbol of Oppression: Both situations—poverty beyond the Pale and conditions in Gaza—serve as potent symbols in national narratives. They epitomize broader issues of oppression, colonization, or occupation and are frequently referenced in political rhetoric and activism.
- Migration: Economic hardship and political strife have led to significant migration. Many Irish left due to poverty, especially during the Great Famine. Similarly, many Gazans have sought to leave due to the dire economic and political situation, though movement out of Gaza is heavily restricted.
- International Attention: The conditions in both areas drew international attention and sympathy. Stories of Irish poverty played a role in shaping perceptions of the British role in Ireland, especially in countries like the US. The situation in Gaza, given its severity and the political implications, has garnered significant international media attention and humanitarian concern.
However, while there are parallels, there are also significant differences: - Duration and Nature of Control: The British control and influence over Ireland spanned centuries and evolved significantly over time. In contrast, while the historical roots of the Palestinian issue go back a long time, the specific challenges facing Gaza, especially in terms of blockades and restrictions, have been more concentrated in recent decades.
- Geopolitical Context: The Gaza Strip's situation is deeply enmeshed in broader Middle Eastern politics, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and global geopolitics. The historical plight of Catholics in Ireland was more closely tied to British domestic policies and, later, to the dynamics of the British Empire.
While comparisons can provide insights, it's crucial to approach each situation in its nuanced historical, political, and cultural context. As I consider both struggles, I'm left recognizing how hard and unpleasant it would be to walk in the shoes of the rebels while at the same time reflecting that the Irish did indeed gain independence, and the arc of history appears to be leading the Palestinians toward the same outcome - though I agree nuance is especially important in an ongoing conflict.Your reflection captures the complex nature of both struggles. Here are some points to consider based on your observations: - The Difficulty of Rebellion: Indeed, the path of resistance and rebellion is often fraught with hardships, sacrifices, and moral dilemmas. Rebels often face overwhelming odds, both in terms of military might and international politics. Many face persecution, imprisonment, or even death. For them, however, the cause often justifies the costs, driven by deeply held beliefs about justice, rights, and nationhood.
- Independence and the Arc of History: The Irish struggle did lead to the establishment of the Irish Free State (and later the Republic of Ireland), though it came after years of resistance, political maneuvering, and, importantly, a willingness from both sides to engage in dialogue and compromise. However, it's worth noting that the conflict didn't entirely cease with the establishment of the Irish state. Northern Ireland remained—and remains—a contested space, and "The Troubles" in the latter half of the 20th century are a testament to the lasting complexities of the issue.
- Palestinian Statehood: The Palestinian quest for statehood has faced numerous challenges. While the international community widely recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, the path to a full-fledged state remains fraught with obstacles, including territorial disputes, internal Palestinian divisions, and the broader dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, as you noted, many believe that the arc of history does bend toward justice and that, given the right circumstances and political will, a resolution could be found.
- Importance of Nuance: While historical parallels can offer insights, every conflict is rooted in its unique set of circumstances. For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is ongoing, nuance is particularly critical. Over-simplifications or blanket comparisons can sometimes obscure the complex realities on the ground, making diplomatic resolutions even more challenging.
Your reflections underscore the importance of empathy in understanding such struggles. Walking in the shoes of those involved—whether they are rebels, civilians, or even officials trying to navigate the complexities—provides a richer, more nuanced perspective on the intricacies and challenges of such conflicts.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Oct 19, 2023 10:17:32 GMT
The difference between now and the sixties is that in the sixties, the national newspapers and BBC/ITV news broadcasts on radio and television were the only mass news outlets in the UK. Now we have the Internet, we have discussion and we have more TV channels than you could shake a stick at. We have Fox, CNN and Al Jazeera. The death of the Establishment is complete, all hail the international proletariat.
Which is why, back in the sixties, Yasser Arafat was seen by the great majority in the UK as a tool of Satan, a rabid killer who should have no voice in affairs of state. It took until the eighties for reporters like Robert Fisk to start to have some effect. And then we all invented Social Media and the world disintegrated into one large shouting match.
To be honest, public opinion has always been a lousy basis for policy making.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Oct 25, 2023 10:01:02 GMT
Perhaps ukoldieschat has a view on banning entry to UN representatives?
I'm trying to pitch my posts to the level of interest here, but it's not easy to find a balance. Perhaps my mentions of Chat-GTP4 were misjudged.
|
|
|
Post by althea on Oct 28, 2023 10:40:11 GMT
I have written a long answer to your posts, spot, but sadly my internet connection is flickering on and off. I may try again later.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Oct 28, 2023 11:24:19 GMT
I have written a long answer to your posts, spot, but sadly my internet connection is flickering on and off. I may try again later. It's dispiriting when that happens althea, I've had it too on occasion. If it's a lot of text I try to copy it to my clipboard before I try posting. There's a fad for using a browser for typing and I never thought it was safe or sensible - all the Microsoft Office 365 programs seem to rely on it. When I was a lad we used programs on the machine itself.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Oct 28, 2023 11:52:22 GMT
James Cleverly, the UK’s foreign secretary, told broadcasters:
I doubt very much that Hamas would "abide by calls for a ceasefire", Mr Cleverly. It's completely irrelevant whether they would or they wouldn't. Hamas is a criminal organization, it does not obey the law. Israel is a nation state, it is obliged to obey the law, and the law says that civilians must be protected and food and water and medical supplies must not be withheld. Civilians are not being protected, they are being blitzed. Food and water and medical supplies are blocked at the Rafah crossing by order of Israel, not by anyone else. The provision of 20 trucks a day is a nominal irrelevant drip of supplies which cannot provide for the 2 million non-Hamas civilian residents of the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip wouldn't be a no-go area for Israel's IDF if Israel hadn't built a damned great wall around it and refused exit to all the Palestinian residents. I'm absolutely certain that all the Palestinian residents would be delighted to be allowed to live outside the wall but they're corralled in there. The Hamas members responsible for the atrocity of October 7th-8th should obviously be arrested and tried but Israel isn't making the slightest effort to arrest anyone at all. All it's done so far is caused a lot of damage to infrastructure and killed close to 10,000 residents of the Gaza Strip, at least 9,000 of whom have never killed or planned to kill anyone.
|
|
|
Post by althea on Oct 29, 2023 12:14:49 GMT
I think many in this country and the USA are afraid to condemn Israel for it's actions, which amount to genocide. The abhorrent tragedy of the holocaust still hangs heavily in people's minds. Nothing we can do now will undo that terrible atrocity and I'm sure everyone living feels the weight of the suffering it caused. Israel is a very militant country. My father was in the navy and was on one of the ships transporting Jewish people back to the newly formed Israel. He told us how joyful and emotional the Jews were to have a homeland again . He remembers many running onto the land and kneeling to kiss the ground. It seems things have progressed a long way from that. The Palestinians have had their homes and land taken from them by force and have been forced to live in terrible circumstances, but it doesn't seem that anyone will criticise Israel for it's lack of humanity. I appreciate that the situation is extremely complex and that I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. I can only see things from a distance, but it looks to me as though Palestine will soon no longer exist.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Nov 7, 2023 0:17:06 GMT
It would be interesting to know how close your post would come to breaking revised UK law if Michael Gove's departmental musings on proposed new legislation are passed by the present government, althea. The documents state: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values; or threaten the rights of individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalisation, hate crime and terrorism”. The article I saw is at www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/04/plans-to-redefine-extremism-would-include-undermining-uk-valuesAre you undermining UK values? Am I? More to the point, would the police think we might be if the Home Secretary insisted they clamp down as hard as the law allows on dissent, to make the streets safe? I might undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy if I were to suggest that Suella Braverman is unfit to hold office, given the unsavoury alt-right prejudices she has undeniably voiced since taking office. I would not want to be prevented from standing as a candidate at the next general election, for instance. Michael Gove's department's leaked internal sensitive documents might persuade me not to take that risk. I bought the album on which www.peteatkin.com/play/c5.htm appeared, when it came out in the mid-70s. There's a play button in the middle of the page.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Nov 7, 2023 0:36:31 GMT
The Gaza issue pivots on who has the power to change course, the criminal Hamas leadership or Israel's war cabinet. It ought to be simple. It ought to be that Israel's war cabinet can choose at any time to tell the IDF to stop fighting and to withdraw. They have, instead, painted themselves into a corner from which they can't do it. If we do it while hostages are still held then we've lost, they say, and consequently they've defined an end position they don't control. The criminal Hamas leadership, who don't represent even the least resourced sovereign nation on the planet, just a walled enclave in no-man's-land, who by all considerations of logic have no power whatever in the face of the focused attention of the regional superpower, has been handed the power to decide when the fighting will stop. Israel's war cabinet have announced that it's entirely up to the criminal Hamas leadership, and that's the problem. It's the problem because, I suggest, the criminal Hamas leadership kicked off the fighting in the first place to goad Benjamin Netanyahu into attacking the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip in the full glare of world public opinion, and they got what they hoped to achieve. And now, for some lunatic reason, they've been handed the only on-off switch. Are they going to press it? Of course they're not. They now dictate Israel's options, simply because Israel's war cabinet has incomprehensibly said that they'll fight on forever and a day until the enemy allow them to finally stop. What sort of idiot gives that sort of power away voluntarily? The Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip are being attacked, starved and bombed in the full glare of world public opinion, which is the only reason the criminal Hamas leadership kicked off the fighting in the first place, and now they can keep it going for as long as they like? They must be laughing their socks off. eta: I should have added the relevant quote and forgot - here it is: "There will be no ceasefire without the return of the hostages. This should be completely removed from the lexicon," Netanyahu told crews at the Ramon air force base in southern Israel, reiterating the government's long-standing position. "We say this to our friends and to our enemies. We will simply continue until we defeat them. We have no alternative." - www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-netanyahu-says-no-gaza-ceasefire-until-hostages-returned-2023-11-05/
|
|
|
Post by ARENA on Nov 8, 2023 15:19:39 GMT
Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail at the time, was friends with Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), and deliberately guided the newspaper to support them.
|
|
|
Post by althea on Nov 9, 2023 13:21:48 GMT
The longer it goes on, the more desperate is the plight of the Palestinians. Our politics always depends on who will get most benefit from by supporting them. It's not altruism of any sort. The whole thing makes me feel angry and ill every time I think of it. It seems there is no humanity left in the world. I know that's a sweeping generalisation, but I feel as though it's true.
|
|