There are a lot of moving parts in answering that fully justified question. Much could be written on it but I'll try to keep my thoughts limited and brief.

Israel are going to be allowed their will in Gaza without intervention other than passive aggressive words from various institutions and public protests from those you'd expect to protest (as is their right)....and coming attacks (which isn't...but that blood won't be on the right's hands).

I agree with you from an humanitarian point of view it's outrageous. However, if you contend that Israel can only survive within the one state metric it's inhuman but necessary.....which is basically the raw reality of war....you kill people and take their land.

Israel only listens to America and America is suffering from the reality that it's largely been bought by the Israeli lobbies and rich Jewish donors.....he who pays the piper and all that. So they will never abandon each other, regardless of which side of the political fence they sit on.

However, this is extremely damaging to America and dangrous to the world.....and both Jewish and non Jewish Americans know it. There will be consequences flowing down from it and you are already starting to see them both internally and externally.

But what happens to the Palestinians, well the future is always speculation of course but In short, if a wider war doesn't happen, I think it's one of two options. Israel gets their way and a significant number of them get shipped out to Europe and the rest stay in south Gaza near the Egyptian border or the UN comes in and rebuilds Gaza while Israel maintains security.....Personally I think the first option is more likely.

It's a giant inhuman mess.

The double standards on show are quite shocking but this was always the underlying reality of politics in the real world. In the final analysis words can't hide real interests when push comes to shove.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Nov 2023 8.41am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

There was a very funny clip doing the rounds on the internet from last year where a guy with a microphone and camera was interviewing protesters at a Refugees Welcome march in London. Basically he was asking protesters whether they would take in an asylum seeker. Obviously the scenario caused problems as at first they said yes but then changed their minds when they said they were living in rented accommodation, so presumably it was somebody else’s responsibility. The clip ended with a women replying to the question ‘why are you marching?’ to which she replies: ‘we’re marching to support those who shouldn’t be here…’
Forgive me if I continue to challenge you on your stance that nobody wants illegal immigration…

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

The government needs to stop all these endless appeals. My none legal solution would be this.

1. Asylum seeker before he makes formal claim is given lawyer.
2. AS is told that he will only have one claim and that he should divulge anything he intends to use in his claim. Ife he changes his mind afterwards too late.

Example. "I am Mr Smith from country A and my claim relates to religious persecution.
3. Claim is considered if rejected AS can appeal but only on the grounds relevant to his claim. For instance AS obtains further proof of his persecution to submit to the court.

Claims will be rejected if AS changes signifiant details.

Example "When I said I was Mr Smith from country A .. I meant I was Mr Jones from country B and my claim relates to gay persecution not religious persecution".

If an appeal fails that is it out you go.

One more point

But we can change it. You just can't change your blinkered attitude.

What has skin colour got to do with too much immigration or the
religious and cultural divisions quickly forming in this country as a result? Perhaps you could explain it.

'Biden facing growing internal dissent over Israel's Gaza campaign'.

Is his 'intelligence' as flawed as 'weapons of mass destruction'?

That there are some who believe that some who are illegal at present should be given a legal route, like those fleeing Afghanistan or Syria, is true. I don’t though believe anyone wants anything done illegally.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.