First the author conflates that people like being in the EU with the idea that member states should integrate further in (as in cede power to) the EU. Starting off on a lie doesn't usually bode well for this kind of texts.
He claims that this offers opportunities to coordinate migration policies but when they do, it's wrong because he doesn't like the policy. He claims that they should stand strong in military defence against Russian aggression but when they do, he's against it because the moment the US suspended their aid they acted immediately instead of just waiting for checks notes the European Parliament agreeing on starting a unified EU-army.
This guy just reads like someone that wants the EU to become just like the US regarding centralization, but with his own policies instead of those inconveniently voted for by his fellow citizens.
They had settlements there before, and now they want to build them back. It´s really weird to franctically want to avoid the word ´rebuild´ in this case
Again, if you interpret Israelis settling in Gaza as ´peacefully´ taking something ´already theirs´ then that´s more of a you problem than a BBC problem
They were quick to add barricades the previous time they expected a mass stampede... But it´s hard to imagine them being able to hold back a million determined refugees without it looking bad on tv.
I still fear that that´s what it´ll come down to though. A lot of people are never going to forgive them if they let them out
And can you describe what you think is wrong with that article? Does it make you question whether those 60+ dead were unrelated to the Israeli attack??
If that's the case then it's just an issue of the Guardian being written for smarter people
Wooooosh