Forum Topics

Why is it only Israel that daily makes the news re 'genocide'?

Jews and many living in or are associated with Israel are the race that suffered the greatest genocide in modern times.For those that might have forgotten, some 6,000,000 were murdered on an industrial scale in Nazi Germany in WWII.This naturally has made them at least wary of how they are considered and treated in the West and the Middle East.Palestinians in their conflict with Israel are not experiencing such a fate.It is claimed that Israel has killed 52,000 Palestinians in Gaza.These are figures put out by the 'Gazan Health Ministry' (unelected).This is known to be run by Hamas  which itself murdered and sexually assaulted numerous women, children and the elderly in October 2023 and still hold many hostages as well as the corpses of those it murdered.It does not distinguish between civilian deaths and those of its fighting forces that imbed themselves amongst the general Populus.And of course Hamas is attempting to enact its Charter Declaration which calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel and its Jewish citizens.But we should not forget there have been and still are many conflicts raging around the world that have resulted in many deaths and claims of genocide.They received and get little attention by the anti-Israel bien pensants and fellow travellers.All the focus is on Israel.For example note the deaths resulting from the following -2023 Masalit, West Darfur Sudan - 15,000 deaths2020 Tigray Ethiopia 162,000 deaths2016 Rohingya, Myanmar - 9,000 deaths2016 China - Uyghur birth rate drops 24% because of genocidal persecution2014 Ukraine - 12,000 deaths by Russians2014 Iraq Turkman 3,500 deaths (by ISIS)2014 Iraq/Syria (Yazidis) - 2,100 deaths (by ISIS)2003 Darfur, Sudan - 98,000 deaths2002 North Kivu, DR Congo - 60,000 deaths1996 Kivu, Zaire - 200,000 deaths (Hutus)1994 Rwanda - 491,000 deaths (Tutsis)1992 Bosnia - 31,000 deaths (by Serbs)All inter-tribal as is the conflict initiated by Hamas against Israel.Cut Israel some slack.

John Hawkes ● 227d141 Comments ● 26d

The Party's Over

People vote Labour for several reasons. One is tribalism, as in 'My family have always been Labour'. It is difficult for such individuals to to change their allegiance as voting for another party would seem like a betrayal of their family or community. Another is self-interest. Workers in the public sector, for example, are more likely to vote Labour since this is the party committed to state rather than private enterprise. So why would they vote for any other party? But there is also a class of people, to which I suspect several of the contributors to Putney Forum belong, who vote Labour because of what they would call a social conscience. They believe that Labour is the party most likely to help the disadvantaged.  Their party allegiance is  part of who they are. Voting Conservative would be tantamount to going over to the dark side. Some individuals, of course, are motivated by all three considerations at once.What these groups have in common is that they are on the whole impervious to rational argument. When presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs they employ various strategies. One is silence. So far example, there has been comparatively little discussion on the thread  about the Budget, which has dominated the News over the past two days.  Another tactic is to blame the Conservatives for everything that has gone wrong since Labour came to power, whether it's Brexit, or Boris Johnson or  Liz Truss (though, oddly, Rishi Sunak is never mentioned, perhaps because he actually got inflation down to 2% as opposed to its current level of 4%). A third strategy is to pretend that things are going in the right direction e.g. net migration is falling (mainly due to the last government's visa restrictions), even though 36 000 unauthorised migrants have crossed the Channel this year..The elephant in the room is the enormous level of debt which costs the government over £100 billion each year to service. This burden is simply unsustainable and will eventually bankrupt the country. Unfortunately Labour's decision, under pressure from its backbenchers, to adopt a tax and spend policy will only make the problem worse. Spending money you haven't got obviously increases indebtedness while increased taxation slows growth and reduces revenues. Tax and spend, which I suspect several contributors to the Forum support, was just about possible under Gordon Brown in 2000 when the ratio of public sector debt to GDP was 29%. But now under Rachel Reeves it stands at over 95%. The party's over but unfortunately the revellers won't go home.

Steven Rose ● 40d89 Comments ● 32d

The IDF and Israeli Police announced that the incident is under investigation.

The Jerusalem Post, November 27, 2025:- "Israeli forces kill two wanted Palestinian terrorists after apparent surrender in West BankThe IDF and the Israeli police said that they will investigate an incident in which Israeli forces shot at two wanted Palestinian terrorists after they appeared to surrender during operations in Jenin on Thursday.Israeli Border Police stated that they identified the building in which the terrorists were hiding and initiated an hours-long attempt to convince the two men to exit the building. When the terrorists refused to exit, Israeli forces used a backhoe to partially open the building's garage door.Video footage released by a Ramallah-based Quds Network shows two Palestinian men emerging from the dark, half-opened garage entrance in front of a number of Israeli Border Police officers.The Palestinian men raised their hands and lifted their shirts to reveal that they were unarmed while kneeling on the ground before attempting to re-enter the building.The video then shows the two men being shot by officers.The soldiers involved in the incident explained that when IDF soldiers attempted to check the men to see if they presented a security threat, they acted contrary to instructions, according to Army Radio.“One of the terrorists decided to enter the building contrary to the instructions, and the other terrorist entered after him, and therefore both were shot,” the soldier was quoted as saying.However, the video appears to clearly show that the terrorists were not running or walking away, but slowly crawling. Based on the slow speed at which the terrorists were moving and the close range, it would have been easy for the soldiers to shoot them in their legs to prevent them from crawling away, and there seemed to be no basis for killing them.Moreover, the video appears to show the sides communicating, and it is possible that the crawling away was part of a miscommunication, which also did not need to result in being killed.This incident occurred as Israeli Border Police personnel were operating in the Jenin area of the northern West Bank, with Israeli Air Force combat helicopters providing support to Commando Brigade forces on the ground, on Thursday afternoon.The military noted that the Border Police activities, under the command of the Menashe Brigade, are part of ongoing West Bank counterterrorism efforts.  National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir endorsed the soldiers' actions, announcing that he extends "full support to Border Guard and IDF fighters who fired at wanted terrorists who emerged from a building in Jenin," in a statement on X/Twitter."

David Ainsworth ● 38d38 Comments ● 35d

The Centre for Migration Control - good old Google AI

People seemed recently to be having trouble finding the Centre for Migration Control on the web, Google AI shows it:-"The Centre for Migration Control (CMC) is a UK-based, right-leaning advocacy group and blog that describes its purpose as "controlling and reducing migration to Britain". It is known for publishing data analyses and reports critical of current immigration levels and their perceived impact on the UK. Key details about the organization:Structure: It operates under the company name Athelney Campaigns Ltd and appears to be largely run by one person, its founder and research director Robert Bates, who is a Reform UK activist.Political Links: The CMC is associated with figures and groups from the pro-Brexit and Reform UK campaigns, including Nigel Farage and Richard Tice. It has been cited by high-profile Conservative and Reform UK politicians.Methodology and Scrutiny: The group primarily uses Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to gather data. However, its analyses and claims have been disputed and fact-checked by media outlets, the Migration Observatory, and other groups for using selective data, muddled statistics, and making potentially misleading claims. The organisation itself has been criticised for a lack of transparency regarding its funding, employees, and research methodology.Activities: The CMC publishes reports and commentary via its website and a Substack blog called "Migration Central". It frequently highlights alleged negative impacts of migration on crime, public services, and the economy. It is an advocacy organization rather than a governmental body, a neutral research institution like the Office for National Statistics Centre for International Migration, or an academic centre like the Centre for Research on Migration, Refugees and Belonging at the University of East London." And its own website shows up on ordinary Google:-https://centreformigrationcontrol.com/Mr Bates appears on GB News quite often, I think.

David Ainsworth ● 37d1 Comments ● 37d

Reeves On The Brink After Lying About Fiscal Gap In Order To Raise Taxes

Reeves on the brink after 'misleading' public with 'smoke and mirrors' over £20bn Budget black holeThe Chancellor has been accused of using 'smoke and mirrors' to justify tax hikes in her Autumn BudgetRachel Reeves has been accused of giving the public a misleading picture of the nation’s finances while preparing a £30 billion tax increase - to protect herself and the Prime Minister.Tensions escalated between the Chancellor and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) on Friday night after the watchdog released a detailed account of its conversations with the Treasury ahead of this week’s Budget.The Chancellor had repeatedly talked down the state of the nation's finances in the build-up to her fiscal statement on Wednesday.According to the OBR, recent comments from Reeves and her team overstated the size of the fiscal gap, setting the stage for her planned tax rises and changes to welfare spending.She placed the blame on Brexit, Tory austerity and Donald Trump for a downgrade to the UK's predicted economic productivity, which would therefore make it harder to meet her own spending rules.The positions of both Ms Reeves and Richard Hughes, the OBR chairman, came under scrutiny after the Treasury criticised his decision to reveal the “private space” in which officials discuss forecasts and assess policy impacts.https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/chancellor-rachel-reeves-budget-latest-5HjdNd2_2/

Sue Hammond ● 38d8 Comments ● 37d

Trump Threatens To Sue The BBC

I knew this would happen and I hope he does!Donald Trump has put the BBC 'on notice' that he plans to sue them for $1billion (£760million) after they doctored his speech and broadcast it on Panorama, it has been revealed today.  President Trump has set a deadline of 5pm EST (10pm in the UK) this Friday to 'comply' with his demands.A letter sent to BBC Chairman Samir Shah at Television Centre by his legal team in Floridasays: 'President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than $1,000,000,000 (One Billion Dollars) in damages.'Due to their salacious nature, the fabricated statements that were aired by the BBC have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums, which have reached tens of millions of people worldwide. Consequently, the BBC has caused President Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm'.The letter from his lawyer, Alejandro Brito, adds: 'The BBC is on notice'.Mr Brito says Mr Trump has three demands. By close of business on Friday the BBC must issue a full and fair retraction, issue an apology and 'appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused'.A BBC spokesman said: 'We will review the letter and respond directly in due course.' It came as BBC chairman Samir Shah made a humbling apology to Mr Trump and admitted he was willing to say sorry in person. 'He's a litigious fellow. So we should be prepared for all outcomes', he said when asked if he knew whether the President will sue.https://mol.im/a/15277189

Sue Hammond ● 57d71 Comments ● 55d

Trump Derangement Syndrome

A Panorama programme broadcast last year ‘doctored’ a speech by Trump, making it appear that he had encouraged a riot at he Capitol after his loss to Biden, according to a whistleblowing BBC memo. The programme misled viewers by showing Trump telling his supporters that he was going to the Capitol to ‘fight like hell’ when in fact he said he would walk with them to ‘peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard’. When this issue was raised with BBC Management, they apparently refused to accept that there had been a breach of professional standards.The false report was not just a deviation from the normal standards of journalism but a contravention of the BBC Charter which imposes a duty of impartiality on its journalists.  What is so surprising that the programme makers felt the need to fabricate evidence against when, for anyone opposed to Trump, there is a lot of true material available.The interesting question is why the Panorama team chose to jeopardise the BBC’s reputation in this way and why the Management refused to remedy the situation. I would attribute the collective failure of the BBC in this case to TDS. The BBC is largely staffed by a left leaning university educated elite. Like most of the progressive left nowadays they don’t believe in socialism but they haven’t replaced it with anything else.  They don’t know what they are in favour of so they define their virtue in terms of who they hate - Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and above all Donald Trump. So in their eyes any attack on Trump, whether factually based or  not, is justified. And even if he didn’t utter the words attributed to him in the programme, or if he used them in another context, it doesn’t matter,  because in the view of the progressives of the BBC it’s the kind of thing Trump would have said.

Steven Rose ● 63d54 Comments ● 59d