Middle East Conflict

[inbetween]

This is the horrible conundrum Israel faces. Going after Hamas the way they are, and killing what they consider to be an 'acceptable' number of civillians for every terrorist, is in danger of reducing them to the same level as the terrorists in the eyes of many. Horrible situation.

Indeed it is. I don't agree with what Israel is doing but I've said it a few times on this thread, I'd challenge anyone faced with a similar threat to act differently.

If Manchester was attacked and thousands were killed in one swift terrorist act followed by continued attack every single day then would everyone be calling for a ceasefire and restraint? No. They'd first and foremost want the maximum amount of force to be used to stop the threat.

There is a question as to how effective Israel has been in stopping that threat and the subsequent civilian casualties but I don't see any alternative. They can't stop and do nothing whilst the attacks continue and there just is no other alternative.

The only way out is to negotiate a ceasefire with the Hamas leadership but that leadership is backed by other states who want this to carry on for as long as possible because they did after all instigate this for a reason.

 

[Ducado]

Indeed it is. I don't agree with what Israel is doing but I've said it a few times on this thread, I'd challenge anyone faced with a similar threat to act differently.

If Manchester was attacked and thousands were killed in one swift terrorist act followed by continued attack every single day then would everyone be calling for a ceasefire and restraint? No. They'd first and foremost want the maximum amount of force to be used to stop the threat.

There is a question as to how effective Israel has been in stopping that threat and the subsequent civilian casualties but I don't see any alternative. They can't stop and do nothing whilst the attacks continue and there just is no other alternative.

The only way out is to negotiate a ceasefire with the Hamas leadership but that leadership is backed by other states who want this to carry on for as long as possible because they did after all instigate this for a reason.

But that does not make it the right response or the response that will ultimately lead to peace, what you are talking about is vengeance and it just does not work, it just prolongs the vicious cycle, this conflict is just another recruitment Sargent for every radical Islamist, and it just creates more

My argument is not against Israel it’s a country I love, it’s the addiction to disproportionate response that ultimately harms Israel and the worldwide Jewish community

 

[Bradley82]

Whom

Aww thanks for correcting my error mate.

 

[inbetween]

But that does not make it the right response or the response that will ultimately lead to peace, what you are talking about is vengeance and it just does not work, it just prolongs the vicious cycle, this conflict is just another recruitment Sargent for every radical Islamist, and it just creates more

My argument is not against Israel it’s a country I love, it’s the addiction to disproportionate response that ultimately harms Israel and the worldwide Jewish community

It is partially vengeance but also partially self-defence given they're actively under attack. It isn't true that Israel was attacked 3 weeks ago and that attack is now over, the attacks are continuing. Hamas and Hamas supporting forces such as Hezbollah are actively attacking Israel every single day.

Would you not argue that Hamas is at fault for this cycle of violence given it started it, it still holds hostages and it is continuing the violence? Why wouldn't you argue for Hamas to stop?

I don't think it's for us to argue on proportionality because both have declared war on each other, it's just one has laser guided bombs and the other doesn't. What do you think Hamas would do if they had such weapons? It would be the end of Israel of course.

 

[robbieh]

Indeed it is. I don't agree with what Israel is doing but I've said it a few times on this thread, I'd challenge anyone faced with a similar threat to act differently.

If Manchester was attacked and thousands were killed in one swift terrorist act followed by continued attack every single day then would everyone be calling for a ceasefire and restraint? No. They'd first and foremost want the maximum amount of force to be used to stop the threat.

There is a question as to how effective Israel has been in stopping that threat and the subsequent civilian casualties but I don't see any alternative. They can't stop and do nothing whilst the attacks continue and there just is no other alternative.

The only way out is to negotiate a ceasefire with the Hamas leadership but that leadership is backed by other states who want this to carry on for as long as possible because they did after all instigate this for a reason.

You seem to be suggesting only Israel has a right to reply.

Many people in the UK go on about the number of immigrants illegal or otherwise that come to Britain.

Imagine a scenario where 40 million entered Britain and then set up the government of the land.

Because that's what Palestinians have experienced. Hence my question on whether they are entitled to use violence against their occupiers.

 

[Vic]

Well, it's also a question for you, as you're advocating it, I think?

To me, it doesn't seem possible without a literal genocide against Gazans. And even the fall of the leadership (which as you point out, isn't going to happen) wouldn't eliminate the problem. So I don't understand what is planned.

I'll give it a go, more or less thinking out loud.

1. Eliminating Hamas. The most to be hoped for there is to kill however many Hamas have in Gaza. Presumably the orders will be no prisoners. (Given the vagaries of "international law", do rules apply about not shooting surrendered combatants? If Israel has declared a war, does that mean the IDF soldiers captured are technically not hostages, but PoWs?)

2. Flattening Gaza. If any building could contain a single sniper, does that justify flattening every building?

3. Avoiding civilian casualties. Not a priority. Is there any calculation about proportionality? See argument that "proportionality" here means not balancing deaths of innocents from October 7th against deaths of innocents in Gaza (we're obviously past that) but proportionate to what's needed to achieve (1).

It's the "Then what?"

4. Make Gaza unliveable. Never restore water or power. Create another 2 million refugees. OR

5. Occupy (and run) whatever's left of Gaza. Hope that none of those left resent this and people accept the occupation without demur. OR

6. Leave without establishing any authority except the UN.

Future plans?

7. Larger DMZ around Gaza (rather than encouraging settlements within easy rocket range of Gaza). OR

8. Larger DMZ within Gaza.

And that's without dealing with the West Bank and settlements.

 

[Eds]

You seem to be suggesting only Israel has a right to reply.

Many people in the UK go on about the number of immigrants illegal or otherwise that come to Britain.

Imagine a scenario where 40 million entered Britain and then set up the government of the land.

Because that's what Palestinians have experienced. Hence my question on whether they are entitled to use violence against their occupiers.

Ignoring the fallacies, why hasn't Hamas attacked Egypt who also have a border with Gaza and who, in theory, also control what / who passes through the border. Or is it just Israel they have an issue with as per their charter which in case you have forgotten states that "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The right for Israel to exist is what is at stake here.

 

[meltonblue]

He has condemned the attacks without specifically condemning or even naming Hamas. Subtle but significant difference.

He did in the article I saw he wrote, probably not still as individually as some would have liked him to though.

 

[robbieh]

Ignoring the fallacies, why hasn't Hamas attacked Egypt who also have a border with Gaza and who, in theory, also control what / who passes through the border. Or is it just Israel they have an issue with as per their charter which in case you have forgotten states that "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The right for Israel to exist is what is at stake here.

What fallacies? That Israelis live on land that their grand parents never did whilst the Palestinians whose grand parents did are wallowing in an open prison.
They're not attacking Egypt because Egypt didn't take their land. Wise up.

 

[Bradley82]

The west did it with Isis, Israel can do it with Hamas.

But there are at least 10,000 fanatic ISIS fighters imprisoned in Syria of many nationalities that's without the thousands of displaced families held in camps, think Shemima Begam. Nobody knows what to do with them. One day they'll have to be released. We know its important to remember how they were given the opportunity to form in the first place.