Padraig

I found an article from January on this. https://hungarytoday.hu/fidesz-slams-eu-over-rule-of-law-in-spain/ Or is this something new? Im not surprised that Fidesz is supporting their friends Vox. Given all the criticism Hungary gets, I’m sure they enjoy pointing fingers. But can’t see this get much attention.

Eventually I was going to respond to this post by Kalbear. I don't think we disagree too much, just how you frame it. Sure, the 2014 invasion had a negative effect on relations (and did lead to some sanctions) but a lot of things continued on their merry way. The football World Cup was held in Russia in 2018 (Macron turned up for the final) without any great fuss. Nord Stream 2 continued, even though that was controversial even before 2014. According to the below website, EU FDI in Russia kept increasing until 2017, when it flatlined. Sure, other figures look worse (imports and exports, but even here, there was a negative trend on those metrics from before 2014, given the rise of China). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/702591/EXPO_STU(2023)702591_EN.pdf Russian went into recession in 2015 but that was more to do with falling oil prices than sanctions, although sanctions obviously didn’t help. Some countries were more hardline than others but a lot of money was still been made in Russia until 2022 by EU countries. The 2022 invasion was the real game changer.

All of the above. It is really sad that FIFA is so money focused and there will be a lot of talk about how bad Saudi is before and during the competition but it's all ultimately performative. PSG, Newcastle, Man City, the Qatar WC etc. have all shown that football carries on regardless of the investors.

I see two simple targets for Russia. One, occupy more of Ukraine. Two, maintain what they have. So, when people talk about staying power, could it be that it just negates objective one but objective two remains much more viable? Ukraine has shown that it is very difficult to make progress against a well dug in opposition. And Russia wouldn't need to use as much resources in full defensive mode. I don't think Putin will give up his ultimate objective but he could certainly bide his time for a few years until things seem more promising. Build up industrial output in Russia or get increased military stock from N Korea and Iran. Or whittle away at sanctions. In other words, staying power is only a factor if Russia keeps on using resources at the current levels. And Russia probably isn't that delusional. When it comes to the West, if it believes that while it can pump more and more weapons into Ukraine, it is not expected that the borders will change over the next few years, then you can imagine it wandering what is the point? Of course, it is hard to imagine that Putin will agree to a proper peace, so maybe we end up back in the pre 2022 frozen conflict. Or, as somebody said before, we end up with more nuclear powers. I was surprised by this statement. Many European countries tied themselves very closely with Russia, even after 2014. Or, we could live with it. Ok might be a bit too strong. A frozen conflict is bound to leave us very uneasy because a frozen conflict almost certainly will not stay that way in the long term. But I could see things go that way. I find it hard to imagine that we remove sanctions on Russia though. We have largely adapted to those sanctions by now and it will seem like too much of a reward. Sanctions could go but I would really want the West to get more than a "frozen conflict".

Thanks for all that. It seems that there are weapons that could make a difference but it doesn't seem likely that they will reach Ukraine in a timely way or in sufficient numbers. (And things could get worse depending on elections in 2024). And while Ukraine could win a war of attrition, this presumably would take years. And even then, no guarantees (I remember Werthead posted about how the casualty ratio between Russia and Ukraine was dropping significantly when Ukraine started seriously attacking. Maybe less so now that Russia is going on the offensive again but as mentioned, it will be tough to sell defending as a long term strategy in order to wear Russia out, especially as it gives Russia more time to embed the occupied territories into its fiefdom). Geography really favoured the Kherson victory last year. I'm not sure there is anything close to that left in occupied Ukraine. Admittedly, I've never been particularly optimistic about this war but i'm really pessimistic these days.

Right. While Ukraine ended 2022 on quite a positive note, things don't seem to have gone well in 2023. I'm not as clued in as other people here but almost 11 months into 2023, it is hard to see where a Ukrainian victory will come from. Is there something NATO can plausibly give Ukraine that would make a major difference? Neither side can seemingly overcome the defenses of the other (except marginally). And while the Russian army is frequently mocked, it simply has the greater numbers to compensate for any silly mistakes. Joke is on us really. So I don't see how this is going to end positively. Russia wouldn't stop because it presumably thinks that it can outlast Ukraine (and its not obviously wrong). Ukraine wouldn't want to lose so much land to Russia but is it really still confident that it can retake significant parts of the occupied lands? Or just hoping? If so, there are a lot of people dying based on that hope. Anyhow, another depressing world situation. Hopefully i'm wrong.

I know this is ages ago now. But wow. Attacking Gazans for not dying in large numbers trying to remove Hamas? This is obviously not the first time this has ever been mentioned on the internet. It is nearly always used as a way to condemn the civilians of Gaza and to implicitly endorse any suffering they experience. "They deserve it". Maybe that is not meant but there is no attempt in putting what is stated in any sort of defensible context. I'm aghast. The fact that something that happened 250 years ago is used to justify this position is hilariously bad. This is wrong in many other ways as well but I wouldn't belabour things.

Great to hear that confirmation. And nice that, while Konfederacja has more seats than last time, I remembered when I looked at polling in early 2023, it had twice the support. Looked grim. Is the President very likely to veto decisions by the way? Or only the most sensitive ones? I did see that he can't run again, so that will be an interesting election in 2025 Hopefully the new coalition agree on somebody!

The Good Friday agreement might be a good example for this...weird discussion. It is actually made up of 2 agreements, a bilateral international agreement (between Ireland and the UK) and a multilateral agreement between those 2 nations and 8 political parties in NI. (Admittedly, I didn't know the technical terms of these agreements until just now). The international agreement is the legal agreement it seems. Gaza is quite unique, so just make up a term for it. Call it akyfila, say.

Unfortunately, the recent Slovakian election puts that in doubt. But still, you are right that it is a big result for Poland and Europe. Poland has a significant voice, especially for Eastern and Central Europe. I was looking at 3 big elections in Europe this year. Hungary, Turkey and Poland. None of them looked particularly hopeful but the polls in Poland did seem to grow more positive during the year.

Congrats on the turnout! And the exit poll is definitely reliable? The Slovakian one was completely wrong a few weeks ago.

I don't get this. Are you saying that Israel objected to all subsequent payments? Obviously any money that goes to Gaza was going to find its way to Hamas. But countries (including Israel) must have felt that Gaza was relatively contained and nobody could stomach mass starvation (at that time). I see this story as a non-story. Unless i'm missing something. And yes @Gorn, I know where Hamas is based. I wouldn't shut down a news channel because of it though. All channels are biased.

That's what I mean. You can make all sorts of arguments about why you are a little off form. The only truth though is that New Zealand were better on the day. On the choking. On those other occasions we weren't that good, so I don't choking factors as much. But yes, because this team seemed to have quality, you could definitely argue they choked. But in fairness to them, you can't fault them for their efforts.

Just to be clear on this. This is the same financing that Netanyahu approved of (i.e., that was previously discussed). https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231014-qatar-iran-turkey-and-beyond-the-galaxy-of-hamas-supporters The funding was needed to prevent starvation. As a general point, I know this is perfectly normal on any sort of discussion board, but it is a little frustrating that people seem to be more interesting in point scoring than actually relaying news. It is hard to avoid our own biases from showing. Yes. Culturally and religiously there are significant differences between Mosul and Gaza. It doesn't mean that Israel can't succeed in its initial aims but the real question is whether it will be a permanent solution. Because of those cultural/religious factors, I fear not.

Can't argue with the result. Ireland could still have won but there were too many mistakes on the day. It will certainly go down as an opportunity thrown away, which is sad for some truly great players. Besides, Ireland has won a lot of games very narrowly over the last couple of years. Sooner or later one of them would go against us. I'm sure people will wonder whether NZ's kinder draw helped. Who knows. But all that matters is what happens on the day.

You are right that there probably is a way to turn the people in Gaza almost completely against Hamas. I fear this isn't the way though. But I hope this is another of those times where I am wrong. This sounds right. Mainstream German politicians are nearly always going to be sensitive about been critical against Israel. And Von der Leyen is German. And obviously Germany has an influence on the EU also. While the Hamas attack certainly drives home that support across the EU.

Hopefully this doesn't last 9 months. But I wouldn't really compare the two situations. I'm not saying that the Israeli army can't defeat Hamas, in as far one can adjudicate a defeat in that environment. Its whether Hamas can be destroyed completely, a far bigger challenge. Or whether it will be replaced by something worse. I'm not talking about this year or next. I'm talking about the next 15 years and beyond. It goes back to what I said about Israeli containing Gaza for the last 15 years. A few weeks ago, people would probably have said this was a quite successful. I want to think about permanent solutions. Simply put, the alliance of forces that regained Mosul would have been viewed much more favourably than the Israeli army. But Islamic State is still around, even if far diminished. Getting rid of these toxic forces is hard. And the hatred in Gaza has had a long time to build up. So yes, you can turn an enemy into a friend but it takes a lot of work. Gaza and the West Bank takes even more. Killing lots of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters is not a sign that the trajectory is going to change.. And i'm not sure why people suggest this is a binary thing. Do nothing v go all out. People have also said that Israel could be a lot more ruthless and I buy that. Because it is clearly not a binary thing. So yes, Israel shouldn't do nothing but it doesn't have to go as far as it is. In fairness, Zorral's response was responding to you saying that the hatred of Jews among Arab and Muslims preceded the modern conflict by over a millennium. I'm not saying that everything was rosy but as you say, there was a strong Jewish community in the Middle East into the 20th century (hardly possible if the kind of current rage existed then) and I believe that is was treated far better than the community in Europe.

Oh come on. If it could do that, it would have. Yes. Ultimately this. Over the last 15 years, Gaza was relatively contained. That was the "solution" to the crisis there. But that can't last. Hamas is not even the most violent Palestinian organisation. If it goes away, there is nothing to say its replacement wouldn't be worse (remember how Islamic State arose elsewhere) unless there is an actual willingness by Israel to make serious change. And that is not treat the people in Gaza even more like prisoners. I'm not sure do experts really think it is possible for Hamas to actually go away. Best interpretation, it is too early to learn about how things will change. But given what has happened up to now, you would have to fear that things will just get worse, whether Hamas is there or not. Edited to add: Maybe we may get a new facade and things will be quiet for a while. Is that enough?

If this is the incident from 2014, I think that is fair to conclude. But honestly, I don't think you are doing yourself any favours by insisting that Israel is the worst of the worst. Or joint worst ever. However bad the attacks are on Gaza (and they are harsh), it is correct to say that Israel could do much worse. You can say what they are doing is very bad or shocking without driving everything up to 11. i know in modern society we can't help ourselves though. Anyhow, thanks to those who showed the immediate polling. We'll see what happens but that was interesting. And I wasn't aware of the ethnicity of Egyptians. I thought I knew stuff... And finally. Given what happened in Israel, it is depressing that the focus couldn't be on the victims there, and we aren't immediately onto the next set of victims. One of the most shocking things I read was from the father of an Irish-Israeli woman who said (after his daughter was missing for a number of days) that it was a blessing to learn that his daughter was dead. The only alternative being that she was kidnapped. You couldn't get much more of a stomach punch. So, I don't know. We can only mourn the victims and await more to come.

I have to say this. Geneva Convention postdated WW2, so not sure what you mean by this. Not that we could expect much from Germany anyhow in WW2??? And North Vietnam had other sources to fuel. Morally, collective punishment is evil. Expecting it to be a war crime is a sane reaction. The idea that if Sweden committed something it would be a war crime (because it signed a document) and if Israel did the exact same thing it wouldn't be, is morally repugnant. I'm not sure why you are wedded to it not being a war crime, in so far as you have deliberately gone out of your way to find evidence of such based on an extreme reading of the articles. You asked for something in the Geneva Conventions. That's the relevance. Now you add caveats! Although, as Kalbear said, for all intents and purposes Israel is the occupying power in Gaza. I'm sure there is "some expert" out there that says otherwise. Most times you see experts say it is likely a war crime. That's nothing unusual. I think its the influence of the legal community. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Edited to add: I do hope he can moderate things to some degree. Not that I think we'll notice because it is going to be bad either way. But it probably wouldn't be as bad as feared by some people. Not that that is in any way reassuring.

Who exactly is hedging? Propaganda 101 says you make claims, loudly and firmly. The fact that you found people doing so tells me nothing except that the internet is working like usual. You'll just saw that Israel didn't sign this, which somehow in your mind vindicates them but here... https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.34_AP-I-EN.pdf In addition to the duties specified in Article 55 of the Fourth Convention concerning food and medical supplies, the Occupying Power shall, to the fullest extent of the means available to it and without any adverse distinction, also ensure the provision of clothing, bedding, means of shelter, other supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population of the occupied territory and objects necessary for religious worship. And yes, it doesn't the words fuel or electricity. Maybe in your mind they are not "essential to the survival of the civilian population", so vindication! Edited to add: @GrimTuesday And yes, Bennett was never moderate. His best quality was that he hated Netanyahu..

Ran. You saying something is very complicated, doesn't make it so. A few days ago you admitted barely knowing anything about the border crossing to Egypt. Today you are confidently adjudicating whether something is a war crime a not based on your knowledge of said crossing. It should be noted that the ongoing talks about the border crossing involve the US. I think it would be silly to believe that Israel's views are not taken into consideration. You certainly have not shown anything positive. Are you actually saying that Hamas is going to seize all the food and fuel that would be sent to Gaza? Or do you think that because Hamas may grab a small percentage, that would be enough to eradicate any expectation of aid?

This is actually important. If your argument really was that because Israel didn't sign a document, it couldn't be legally charged with a war crime, then why has the Security Council the right to refer Israel to the ICC for the same war crime? The US not allowing this doesn't get away from the fact that it could allow Israel to be charged. Dare I ask. Do you think this is a case of collective punishment? We all know the legal system fails but this board has no legal basis. We can all make our own moral judgements. This is exactly my point. You suggest that Egypt can simply supply aid to Gaza without any discussions. Yet here we are, ongoing talks. I really think you have been reading very slanted news...

Geez. It is collective punishment Here is Convention IV. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf ART. 33. — No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. Where did you read this? Israel has bombed the one crossing between Gaza and Egypt. Has Israel said it wouldn't bomb aid crossing the border? Because who knows whether it is really aid? It would be much safer if Israel allowed aid itself into Gaza rather than allowing who knows what cross from Egypt.

I'm aware of the above, although I know some people would argue the context of some of those points. But it doesn't change my point. Rightly or wrongly, I felt things changed after his death. There was momentum and then there wasn't. People tried to regain that momentum a few years later and maybe with a bit of bravery it would have worked. But it didn't and down we went. I don't know whether he should have encouraged unity but he certainly could have actively tried to build up the Palestinians. Maybe he would have failed but peace can't be found via violence. (Obviously, Netanyahu wasn't going to do this but that was the only way to peace). I do hope you are right that Netanyahu wouldn't recover from this. I assume he will survive the next few months because the focus will be Gaza instead. But after, we'll see.