Middle East Conflict | Netanyahu orders strikes on Gaza (p1161)

blueinsa said:
In writing from the horses mouth.

No peace with these people. No interest in a 2 state proposal and answer.

Hamas are a clear and present danger to the state of Israel and its citizens and as such, they need wiping out.

The same goes for Hezbollah.
Click to expand...

Interestingly many experts, governments and commentators at the time said this was Hamas accepting a two state solution although I’m not entirely convinced of that interpretation from the text.

I’m curious why you think Israel would accept a two state solution though. Let’s look at the evidence; we already have some sort of de-facto two state setup - yet there is no happy coexistence from either side. For example, Israeli settlers have long been an issue - moving in, attacking local Palestinians and destroying Palestinian crops (which they rely upon for food self sufficiency and income) all under the watchful eye of the IDF - this, one might be forgiven for thinking, is state sponsored. How do you even begin to reconcile that with an Israeli desire for a peaceful two state solution? Actions speak louder than words.
 
The blue phantom said:
Surely Labour voters in favour of the Ceasefire especially the Muslim vote won't forget his stance on this at the Ballot box.
Click to expand...
People tend to vote in GE as to how they are feeling domestically it’s a fact, the Muslim vote is as diverse as the population there are a fair few Muslim Tories, and Labour has deep ties with the Jewish community many of the early Labour pioneers were Jewish
 
blueinsa said:
In writing from the horses mouth.

No peace with these people. No interest in a 2 state proposal and answer.

Hamas are a clear and present danger to the state of Israel and its citizens and as such, they need wiping out.

The same goes for Hezbollah.
Click to expand...
But you could equally say that about Israel and the treatment of Palestinians, where is this getting anyone?

Even you must realise that all Israel is doing is radicalising the population, meaning this is going to be a never ending cycle of violence

Also we run the risk of this igniting a wider conflict not just in the region but the world
 
west didsblue said:
Just for propaganda reasons imo.
There’s been a 9 year civil war there and this is just one of the belligerents posturing, and funnily enough it’s the Iranian backed Houthis. At its closest point it’s 1000 miles from Israel so they’re not going to do much.
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier they are goading Israel to attack them, and then claim the the Gulf Countries are in hoc with the Israelis,which would be very damaging
 
metalblue said:
Unfortunately mate religion is an undeniable part of all of this, so much blood has spilt in these lands in the name of religion over the centuries. Bonkers the lot of them.
Click to expand...
Why concluding on religion only, when the 1948 massacre and gradual push of 750,000 humans to have their lands exiled out is because of culture.

Before 1920s, Palestine was a productive state with modernization, international trade, transport (including its railway around 1900, by Jews, Christians and Arabs. And then came Ben Gurion and that changed
 
Ducado said:
But you could equally say that about Israel and the treatment of Palestinians, where is this getting anyone?

Even you must realise that all Israel is doing is radicalising the population, meaning this is going to be a never ending cycle of violence

Also we run the risk of this igniting a wider conflict not just in the region but the world
Click to expand...

Israel is surrounded by enemies who want nothing more than to wipe them from the face of the Earth.

That has always been the case.

That was the case before this war started and will be the case long after it’s finished.

What exactly could Israel do that would enable them to live peacefully with its predominately Muslim neighbours?

I’m all ears?
 
Vialli98 said:
No idea. I don't have detailed reports at hand, but it was a 20 year occupation. Think about how crazy that sounds. Occupying another country for two decades.

The initial stories around the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam has WMDs.

But you'd think many of those that weren't killed by direct military action eventually died from the destruction of the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated, all of which would be considered indirectly caused by the military action.
Click to expand...

just for reference. and im only saying it because i've seen the 1.2m figure mentioned before and debunked. the numbers of death figures vary wildly. 1.2m is higher than all the highest estimates. from googling came from asking 2000 people if they knew people killed in the war and extrapolating up, depending on where they asked that could result in wildly different results ( IE, asking in Bagdad or Fallujah vs outer lying towns etc )

the official figures are about 200k.

www.statista.com

Civilian deaths in Iraq war 2003-2023 | Statista

Between 2003 and July 2023, the number of civilian deaths due to the Iraq war has fluctuated significantly.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

and when you look at the years, Most of those deaths and destruction in Iraq were caused by insurgents and the Birth of ISIS trying to take over the half of Iraq and Syria rather than direct US military action.

Dont get me wrong, the whole birth of ISIS was caused by this war so really can count. as can what happend in Syria. Ironically it was actually the US starting to walk away that caused ISIS. they let people out of prison they shouldn't' have and they started ISIS.

I was against the Iraq war and still am, the whole thing was a mess. all of this can be traced back the invasion but the idea that the US directly killed 1.2m in Iraq ( which is what the figure is usually expressed as, not directly by you ) which they really didnt.
 
metalblue said:
Interestingly many experts, governments and commentators at the time said this was Hamas accepting a two state solution although I’m not entirely convinced of that interpretation from the text.

I’m curious why you think Israel would accept a two state solution though. Let’s look at the evidence; we already have some sort of de-facto two state setup - yet there is no happy coexistence from either side. For example, Israeli settlers have long been an issue - moving in, attacking local Palestinians and destroying Palestinian crops (which they rely upon for food self sufficiency and income) all under the watchful eye of the IDF - this, one might be forgiven for thinking, is state sponsored. How do you even begin to reconcile that with an Israeli desire for a peaceful two state solution? Actions speak louder than words.
Click to expand...

I still dont understand how people are still brushing this quote from Netanyahu under the carpet. It's fairly obvious that Netanyahu and Hamas are two sides of the same problem.

“Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy, to differentiate between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.”
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I would suggest the correct word to deploy is reckless. Israel is reckless to the loss of innocent life in their anger fuelled campaign of vengeance against Hamas.
Click to expand...
I'd go for "careless, reckless and using excessive force". But the USA is the ref, UK and others the assistants and no-one's taking notice of the UN/VAR.
 
blueinsa said:
Israel is surrounded by enemies who want nothing more than to wipe them from the face of the Earth.

That has always been the case.

That was the case before this war started and will be the case long after it’s finished.

What exactly could Israel do that would enable them to live peacefully with its predominately Muslim neighbours?

I’m all ears?
Click to expand...
Well the first thing is the most obvious, get back to the negotiating table, and be serious about the two state solution and not some Bantostan style enclaves that were offered previously (a number of Gaza strips)

The next is stop the brutality on the West Bank, if you can’t see it’s counterproductive then you are blind, there is no need to use live ammunition on rock throwing kids, or the daily humiliation at checkpoints, or the unimpeded violence from settlers so dressed in army uniforms

Quite a few Muslim countries have diplomatic relationships with Israel including the UAE and there is travel and trade, as far as I am aware there is only one country that wants to destroy Israel and that’s Iran and it’s proxy armies

With a fair and just settlement peace would come, there are always going to be some radicals on both sides that will object

What’s your objection to a fair and just settlement? Can you not see that without it this cycle of violence will just go on and on? Or are you enjoying the sight of innocent people being killed and maimed on both sides?

It’s one or the other I’m afraid military might won’t solve this problem it hasn’t before and it won’t now all it does is keep the cycle going

I’m not alone in this, most intelligent commentators see this, because it’s blindingly obvious
 
blueinsa said:
Israel is surrounded by enemies who want nothing more than to wipe them from the face of the Earth.

That has always been the case.

That was the case before this war started and will be the case long after it’s finished.

What exactly could Israel do that would enable them to live peacefully with its predominately Muslim neighbours?

I’m all ears.
Click to expand...

I could give this a go, but you will have to be more specific. By neighbours, you mean the Palestinians? Or do you include close neighbours like Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Lebanon? Or the more important regional players like Saudi, Qatar, and Iran?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top