Future for Palestine: Israel, Gaza and the West Bank

What principles do I apply to this situation?

I believe in the right to self-determination for indigenous local people. 

It isn't for people in Britain to dictate what should happen far away.

This is true now. It was true in the 1940s, when the area was divided with artificial borders. It was true in 1917 and in the 1800s. It is true anywhere in the world, not just in the area surrounding Jerusalem.

BUT 

I also believe in freedom and basic human rights and dignity, not genocide or crimes against humanity.

peace not war

Therefore, 

* Britain should have a foreign aid budget and provide assistance to people around the world when they are in need or struck by disaster.

* Britain should not be sending armaments or other support to any place in the world where we might be assisting in crimes against humanity.

How does this apply to Palestine & Israel?

Palestinians are entitled to self-determination.

FACT: Israel’s occupation and settlement policies violate international law.

The Israeli government’s settlement policy violates human rights.

Palestinians should enjoy human rights and dignity, equal to Israeli citizens on that land. 

The Israeli government must be held accountable for its actions. Due process should take place in the appropriate legal courts.

Ultimately, what about a two-state solution or a one-state solution? 

As stated, this is not for me to determine what should happen far away.

Currently, I find it difficult to believe that a two-state solution will ever be viable. But it isn't for me to say what they should do. I think it is for the international community to merely assist and ensure human rights, dignity, and freedoms.

Am I a zionist or an anti-zionist?

Q: Does Israel have a right to exist? 

Answer: Strange question. Countries do NOT have rights in this way. 

Israel exists in fact, but it does not have the right to exist. No state has a ‘right to exist’ as an ethnic or religious supremacy — states only have a duty to respect the equal rights of all who live there.

I support the right of people to live in safety and equality — that applies to Jews and Palestinians alike.

I think I have made my position clear.

I am NOT a zionist. As I have zero connection to the land, I do not even think it is relevant or appropriate to be a zionist.

If you want to dig deeper in the rabbit hole here is the debate:

ProZionist Position (I do not agree with these statements): 

“Jews are a people, and like all peoples, they have the right to self-determination. Israel is that expression.”

“After the Holocaust, Jews needed a safe homeland. Israel provides that, so it is morally justified.”

“Why single out Israel? No one questions France’s or Pakistan’s right to exist.”

I would counter these debating points with:

Jews have the right to safety and self-expression — but no state has the right to exist through the dispossession of other people. Palestinians also have a right to self-determination. 

The Holocaust was one of history’s greatest crimes, and Jews must be safe everywhere. But ensuring safety for one people cannot come at the expense of expelling and oppressing another.

Israel exists in fact, but states don’t have abstract ‘rights to exist’ — people do. Palestinians also live under that state. The issue is not existence but justice and equality.

France or Pakistan can be criticised for their policies, and they are. Israel is singled out because its foundation involved mass displacement of Palestinians, and because that injustice continues today.

Finally, I also hear:

“Peace is impossible unless Palestinians recognise Israel’s right to exist.”

What about peace being impossible unless Israel recognises Palestinians’ right to exist as equals in their homeland? Recognition must be mutual — not just one side conceding. I see no reason why ot has to be the Palestinians who make all the concessions. 

We should at least ask the question: Why don't the Israelis make the concessions that zionists expect of the Palestinians? 

ETHICS: What is Right and Wrong?

I really find it hard to understand why some Israelis think it is okay to seize people's homes and land and destroy their crops and make them homeless, as we have seen in countless documentaries. 

But I was raised to believe in the Golden Rule: 

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.    

“love your neighbor as yourself,” Leviticus 19:18

Apparently it is enshrined in the Jewish faith as: Talmud (Shabbat 31a), 

“What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. This is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.”

Officially, Israeli zionism is a secular-nationalist political movement for Jewish self-determination.

Zionism is not rooted in a primary moral code. It seems to me to have a questionable relationship with the Jewish faith.

 

Digital ID Cards in the UK -- a solution looking for a problem!

 

Starmer wants to make digital IDs compulsory for every working-age person in the UK. 

Anyone would think he has a deal with a tech company that will charge millions to develop, roll out, and maintain this software for the foreseeable future.

The digital ID would:

• include: name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a photo
• And it would be on your smartphone.

WHAT NO PLASTIC CARD to put with my card collection?

There's going to be a consultation. Yippy.

You would have to present this digital ID when applying for a job or a rental to show you have a legal right to work and live in the UK.

Starmer said:

 "you will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID".

What a load of nonsense. 

When our Prime Minister or MPs come out with stuff like this, it shows how out of touch they are with the real world.

I've never asked my window cleaner for his ID. 

About 1 in 7 people in the UK are self-employed.

People don't need an ID to work as self-employed in various ways; they simply get on with the job, and the customer pays them.

It seems he means that people will need DIGITAL ID if they want to be an employee.

Also, it seems STARMER is so out of touch that he doesn't realise employees already have to give ID to get a job.

Employers demand ID.

You need to give various forms of ID to take a job. 

• You need to provide bank details to receive payment. 
• You need to give your National Insurance number. 
• You also need to provide identification, typically your passport.

Even if you are paid in cash (and so no bank details are taken), your employer still needs to check your ID. 

• Why do employers ask for ID? 

Because it is a longstanding legal requirement for businesses to check and keep records:

• to obtain the identification of their staff 
• and maintain employment records, 
• collect and pay any taxes related to employees, 
• keep records of accidents, 
• and have Employers' Liability insurance. 

AND:

It is already the legal duty of employers to check that employees have the right to work in the UK. 

Since 2022, employers have also been able to carry out checks on passport-holding British and Irish citizens using digital verification services.

It seems Starmer and all his advisors have no experience of working in business with responsibility for employees. It is a shame they don't have anyone who lives in the real world to advise them. Do you think they need some real-world work experience? 

Does anyone know any tool-makers?

***

The PM also said:

• It has been "too easy" for people to "slip into the shadow economy and remain here illegally"

Well, if this is true, frankly, how is a new ID system going to change that? 

Answer: Not one bit.

***

I think my window cleaner is British, and I guess he pays his taxes, but I'm just getting on with my life and enjoy having clean windows.

My point is that the COMPULSORY ID SCHEME doesn't deal with the problems that Starmer claims to be tackling.

If someone doesn't have the right to work here how will the new ID system change anything? Employers already ask for ID. If employers are happy to flout existing laws, how will anything change?

***

I'm sure my window cleaner could make a better job as PM than Starmer, he certainly couldn't be worse.

I'm up to my ears in ID and online passwords (that I can't remember) and verification codes. Apparently, HMRC (or is it the Inland Revenue?) says my voice is my password.

I don't need another App, thank you very much, but no thanks.

POPULARISM (not populism) Environmental Politics & the Green Party

 I was interested to read an article by Rupert Read that is aimed at "GREEN" political campaigners.

It stressed the importance of talking to the public about things that have relevance rather than about abstract things like NET ZERO (what is it? who knows!).

CLIMATE POPULARISM (not populism)

"This begins with focussing on the lived impacts of climate decline, and resilience to them. Rather than beginning with questions of footprint and abstractions like ‘net zero’. Both of which are far less relevant to ordinary working people." 

he says

"Climate is relevant to ordinary Brits primarily by way of its impacts"

It makes sense to talk about the environmental impact that people experience and how they relate to our dependence on fossil fuels.

• Floods
• Storms
• Droughts
• Wildfires
• Rising food prices
• Food scarcity

Climate action goes hand-in-hand with reducing the cost of living.

he says

"we need community orchards, forest gardens, agri-wilding, edible landscapes, and more—at scale—and we need them soon."

Read the full article here.