Middle East Conflict

[oldius]

Hamas do not want peace. They will repeat these atrocities every time there is a glimmer of hope. They want IDF to respond against Palestinian with brutal force to eradicate any thought of a peaceful two state solution. It will take a massive international response to turn this around.

While this first line may well be true, their stance is replicated on the Israel side by hardliners. I have no doubt that the people of Palestine and Israel want peace. I do not believe that their current leaders do; the start of a solution is an election on both sides.

There is an academic report that I linked to somewhere in the thread, which stated that both Palestine and Israel believe that they only retaliate to aggression. The circle never ends when both parties believe that.

 

[mexico1970]

While this first line may well be true, their stance is replicated on the Israel side by hardliners. I have no doubt that the people of Palestine and Israel want peace. I do not believe that their current leaders do; the start of a solution is an election on both sides.

There is an academic report that I linked to somewhere in the thread, which stated that both Palestine and Israel believe that they only retaliate to aggression. The circle never ends when both parties believe that.

That's about it isn't it? Get rid of the extremists and we will get peace, because with them on both sides there will never be peace.

 

[The blue phantom]

It's an interesting question, because what you've got to ask is at what point does a complete disregard for the accidental death of citizens end and being in favour of bombing civilians begin. We often comfort ourselves in the moral superiority of accidentally (but knowingly) killing civilians to the point that many more civilians will actually die. But it's okay, because we weren't actually targeting them, they were just collateral damage. The proper moral argument for accidentally taking the lives of innocent civilians is that it will save more in the long term. It's an argument I haven't really heard much in relation to this conflict.

It's exactly the question James o Brien asked. What's the number of kids killed/Murdered before someone says. "Yep that's enough now'

 

[Ducado]

I spent a lot time in Israel in my youth and have some good Israeli friends, what many of you don't know is that Israelis (and the Jewish population as a whole) are always deeply insecure (they won't mind me saying that) and with very good reason for 1000's of years they have been murdered, expelled, restricted, and just when it starts to look like it's going well it starts all over again, is it any wonder that many Israelis are dual nationals

Surprisingly enough Russians are the same, and Rusia always likes to have a large security blanket around it's core regions hence them invading Ukraine, the West Bank and The Golan (Gaza is a different subject) has kind of acted as that security blanket

Gaza is a different issue, because nobody really wants it, although some have said that it's golden years were actually under Israeli occupation, there was free movement more or less and people were generally happy. they had been occupied by numerous foreign powers and the Israeli occupation was better than the others

Deal the religious far right Jewish Taliban who are busy settling the West Bank, and offer ordinary Israelis guaranteed security, let them join Nato to cement it, go for EU membership there are so many carrots that the normal Israelis will go for, if they feel secure within their borders.

The current swing to the right is because of this basic insecurity, right wing populists will make promises they can't deliver and appeal to the base instincts of human beings, a secure Israel would take its place in the world as a light among nations as it was intended to be, but I fear between the two sets of extremists it's going to be destroyed

 

[Roachy]

There’s British hostages amongst those taken by Hamas. UK position isn’t really surprising.

British nationals brutally murdered by Hamas as well during their incursion.

 

[St.Pauli support]

Hamas do not want peace. They will repeat these atrocities every time there is a glimmer of hope. They want IDF to respond against Palestinian with brutal force to eradicate any thought of a peaceful two state solution. It will take a massive international response to turn this around.

More and more this conflict is brought to our homelands.
Germany nowadays has declared Israel's security and existence as our basic national interest ('Staats-raison')! We are discussing what that means and it goes as far as full support, also military. But it also involves that Israel has to act in a responsible way to find a peaceful solution without risking their own security. It's not a card blanche.

In that debate, Islamist antisemitism is being targeted as a fundamental problem in Germany. We have a very special responsibility but have also nearly 6m Muslims, sadly not integrated to our communities the way they should be but often living in their own world, partly even under their own laws (accepting Sharia alone!).
Difficult times ahead, in many western societies, as I still expect IDF to further fight Hamas in Gaza, especially the tunnel system. All that will be difficult to handle in our homelands.

But as you say, we have to break the extremists' plans. Fighting terrorism in a smart way, with loads of diplomatic efforts in all directions, deescalating where we can. Media have a huge responsibility as well not jumping on any quick head line without any fact check. All that sounds near impossible, but we can just try the best. The alternative would be an extremist and unfree world.

 

[Ducado]

The world will always stand against terrorism.

Because it’s Palestinian terrorists we are dealing with, no right minded world leader is going to suddenly change tune.

I’ve no doubt and we have heard calls for restraint and for humanitarian aid to be allowed through from nearly all of them but that doesn’t mean you can’t be 100% behind Israel’s right to defend itself and to wipe out its enemy in Hamas.

It depends what do you describe as terrorism, when the IRA were busy killing civilians they were lorded as freedom fighters in the US, are the resistance groups in Myanmar terrorists, were the French Resistance in WW2 terrorists?

It's a loaded word. in used to describe people who are fighting for a cause we don't like rather than one we do like, as always one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter it all depends which side of the fence you are sitting

I always like to sit on the fence, and condemn the actions of both parties but also realising that it does not come from nothing

 

[robbieh]

It's an interesting question, because what you've got to ask is at what point does a complete disregard for the accidental death of citizens end and being in favour of bombing civilians begin. We often comfort ourselves in the moral superiority of accidentally (but knowingly) killing civilians to the point that many more civilians will actually die. But it's okay, because we weren't actually targeting them, they were just collateral damage. The proper moral argument for accidentally taking the lives of innocent civilians is that it will save more in the long term. It's an argument I haven't really heard much in relation to this conflict.

In that case why not just nuke Gaza like the US did Hiroshima.

 

[robbieh]

The IRA weren’t launching rockets across the Irish Sea into London so it’s a pretty childish comparison.

Even as someone who’s been constantly outspoken against the IDF’s use of force and willingness to accept civilian casualties, you really can’t compare the IRA and Hamas.

You're right, it was a different conflict in terms of scale.

 

[St.Pauli support]

It's an interesting question, because what you've got to ask is at what point does a complete disregard for the accidental death of citizens end and being in favour of bombing civilians begin. We often comfort ourselves in the moral superiority of accidentally (but knowingly) killing civilians to the point that many more civilians will actually die. But it's okay, because we weren't actually targeting them, they were just collateral damage. The proper moral argument for accidentally taking the lives of innocent civilians is that it will save more in the long term. It's an argument I haven't really heard much in relation to this conflict.

Yeah, end of the day it's the dilemma of theory and practice. Nobody wants to harm innocents (well, no sane leader) and for that reason Hamas shield themselves with civilians. Their best weapon is international pressure on Israel in reaction to news/pictures of dead civilians. IDF are aware, but that's the dilemma when you want to fight terrorists breaking through your 65km long wall around Gaza built to be left alone. It was not safe, and it will have to get safer.