u/Direct_Appointment99

"Hamahanot Haolim – a century-old 'pioneering, socialist Zionist youth group' – says it is exploring the possibility of building a new Kibbutz in the Jordan Valley, arguing that leftists should populate the area rather than far-right outposts inhabited by violent settlers"

Sorry, quite a long messy one:

A year and a half or so ago, I broke up from my ex. I had discovered his meth stash and decided to end it.

One of the last times we spoke, which was a month after we broke up, he was having a psychotic episode in another country, where he called me from the cupboard of his airbnb, convinced that the police had hacked his phone. He was sending me screenshots of the messages with the people he was with as proof - but from my reading, it looked like he had had a threesome with a couple and then had sex with their drug dealer during a three day binge, in a country with strict drug laws.

So, needless to say that as an ex, it was beyond my paygrade and I had a tearful conversation with one of his friends to take over his emotional care. However, this event and his drug induced behaviour during our relationship affected me deeply and it turned out that his friends had no clue about the addiction.

I didn't speak to him or his friends, until I checked in with one of them to see if he was okay over Christmas last year - to which I had the response "its up and down" - which was enough for me, and I knew what that meant.

Fast forward to this month, and I had a call from the friend I called, saying that another one of their group was in my city and wanted to hang out. I said yes because I thought they were pleasant company when we knew each other.

So we met for a drink last week, spoke about life etc and of course spoke briefly about my ex - I did not pry for information and I didn't want to know about anything going on in his life now - just that he is safe.

We then went on a night out at the weekend, and it turned out that he hadn't told my ex that we were meeting at all!!! Knowing him, he would not take this well. We got really drunk, danced and then went home. I cut short any conversation about my ex.

But now, I am trying to work out his friend's motives. There is something that doesn't feel right. Why did he want to hang out with me? He said I could ask anything I wanted about my ex (as if he was some kind of interpreter) and it felt like he was trying to repair some of the damage he had done. I did not take him up on this.

My question is - was he trying to be a good person to me? Did he genuinely want to spend time with me as a person? Or am I now part of some drama I didn't agree to?

In a report attempting to influence UK foreign policy before the Israeli legislative elections, Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) states that a boycott of West Bank Settlements would be counterproductive as it would lead to a boycott of Israeli goods generally.

"First, a boycott of all trade with settlements is practically and politically impossible. It would impact all Israeli businesses operating in the settlement blocs, as well as East Jerusalem and the Old City, where major Israeli businesses like Bank Hapoalim and Teva operate, and where the tourism sector is critical for Israeli and Palestinian workers. There is a risk that international financial actors overcomply with sanctions nominally targeting settlements, adversely affecting Israelis living within the state’s borders. A settlement boycott would thus become a de facto boycott of all of Israel. This will rightly be perceived within the UK Jewish community as a further example of the government singling out and targeting Israel for punitive action and harsh rhetoric."

The report also insists that older "settlement blocs" should become part of the occupying state and blames the Jordanian government for their existence.

As Andy Burnham assembles his cabinet, the appointment of Ed Miliband has drawn some confusion.

However, the appointment of Miliband is a signal that the British Government will move on, among other issues, Palestine and on foreign aid.

It remains to be seen what this will look like - whether internal dissent will be crushed as it was under Starmer or the UK will continue arms sales or collaboration with the Zionist state.

That all being said, that the appointment of Miliband is seen as such a threat by Zionist extremist Stephen Pollard is very interesting.

Abba Eban, by this time, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Zionist state and introduced here as "Israel's constant voice for peace in the Middle East", delivers a wide ranging speech on:

- Why Israel is the most moral state in the world

- Why Israel has the most legitimacy to exist out of all states in the world

- Why Israel would be not returning the land it captured through war in 1967

- Why the Palestinians should leave their homes and move to Jordan

- Why Jewish immigration to replace the Palestinians is justified

All to boos and chants of "Free, Free Palestine". His callous response, during the short Q&A, to a Palestinian man who had been forced out of his home is telling.

The most striking thing is that Zionist arguments have never changed since then. They have just been stripped of their context as salient analogies have changed.

In support of Purnell's appointment, former LFI director, Jennifer Gerber said: "Andy is someone who will listen and who cares, so the challenge for the community is to help him and others in government fully understand how the events in the Middle East and the language politicians use to talk about them, impact our small community here in the UK.”

In my last house, one letting agent took over from the other, and neither of them protected my deposit correctly.

I have taken them both to court (with the help of no win no fee lawyers) and am on course to get a default judgment against both of them as neither of them acknowledged service.

If more people were prepared to take these people to court over breaches like this, the world would be a better place. I think that many people are not aware that this redress exists or think it would be too expensive or time consuming.

But it really isn't! And knowing your rights keeps the arseholes accountable.

I would say that the enforcement process does take a while, as the UK courts are not in a fit state, so you may need to wait months for the everything to unravel, but the whole process has been incredibly cathartic.

I have seen this mentioned a lot by people who are still fond of him but realise that he will inevitably have to stand down.

​

However, would he actually make a good Foreign Secretary?

​

​

​

Israeli army captures strategic castle in Lebanon in deepest incursion into the country in 26 years

"The Beaufort fortress, perched high atop Lebanon’s rolling green hills and overlooking the Litani River, has been a strategic military asset for many armies over almost 1,000 years.

Built as a Crusader castle around the 12th century on top of previous fortifications, it has been used by the Crusaders, Saladin’s Jerusalem army, Mamlukes, Ottomans, the French mandate, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Israeli military until 2000, when it was partially restored and opened to visitors. The Crusaders named it Beaufort which is Old French for “beautiful fortress.”

I have been re-reading Alexei Yurchak's seminal work "Everything was forever until it was no more", a meditation on why it was that when the Soviet Untion collapsed, it seemed so surprising to Soviet citizens and politicians and then inevitable.

Instead of taking the classic approach, that citizens were either silent dissidents or ideologues or that everyone was deluded, he instead explores the way in which many citizens actually agreed with the Soviet ideals of equality and brotherhood, even when they became divorced from reality and that life in the Soviet Union was a jumble of paradoxes.

In turn, the Soviet state, in all spheres of politics, culture and science, adopted a Soviet schema - official announcements would follow a particular, familiar formula, that would lead to a phenomenon called "hypernormalisation" - the gap between reality and state fiction. Words were calibrated to leave no room to imagine an alternative; so the state and citizens maintained the pretense of a functioning society, despite knowing the system was failing. When the Union started to break up, with all its problems, the fiction under which people were living, was pierced.

In the introduction to the new edition, Yurchak explores how his theory may apply to the modern "West".

How does this apply to Zionism? I don't think it necessarily applies to occupied Palestine. The Zionist state is more like a mafia organisation, ensuring that every Israeli citizen has dipped their hands in Palestinian blood, although it may have some application. However, Zionist "ideals" are clearly different from what is commonly understood abroad.

I think this is more applicable to the diaspora - where many in Jews are so attached to the idealism of Zionism, that they can't imagine an alternative, despite the reality of the ideology in practice. Why do people in the diaspora still cling to an ideology that in any other context, they would find repellent?

Anyway, just thought I would raise this as a discussion point.

Wes has been busy today, disavowing Blair (the man whose acolytes call "TB" because his actual name is more toxic than a disease) and Blairism, despite having been an arch-Blairite and disciple of Mandelson.

Does he think people will take him seriously or that it will make him a viable candidate?

I work in a professional services firm, in the marketing department.

I currently have a manager with less experience in this sector than me, who seems entirely steeped in corporate jargon. I will luckily be transferring away from her in the next month, but I would really like to offer her some feedback.

In one example (I am Jewish, which she knows), she ended a meeting with "and there is something else I want to say..." (in that pause, I thought it was going to be that I was fired), "I and [company name] want to say that our thoughts are with you at this difficult time for the Jewish people." - context being a recent attack in London.

I responded with a thanks, but it just felt like such an inappropriate thing to say, as if she had used ChatGPT to figure out a response. I would have felt much more comfortable if she had just said nothing.

And in work situations, or when offering constructive criticism, she always hides behind policy which she can never talk about in plain English. It always has to be corporatised.

How can I feed back to her that her approach is grating? That she needs to understand that although words may seem neutral to her, that they can mean different things to different people, which is why it is safer to treat employees as individuals.

I do think she would benefit from some feedback, but I'm not sure about thr best way to go about it!

So we finally have the byelection, but how will Burnham campaign?

This is an election for someone to challenge the PM, which puts him in a potentially awkward position and is something we haven't seen before.

Will he be putting forward national policy? Campaign on local issues? Will the Labour Party fund this election?

And will the press play along?

Reform can't say "vote for us to remove Starmer" at least.