Middle East Conflict

I heard an interview with the son of one of the hostages* just released, calling for peace and knowing it would alienate many of his friends.

* the woman who wished her captors "shalom".

That was inspiring, yet depressing as "the things needed for peace" are so far off.
 
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.

For that to happen though Manchester would of had to go into ( Let's say ) Birmingham and say. " All this fuckin land is now ours, Those houses are no longer yours. Now form an orderly line while we lock you all up.
 
can anybody explain why Egypt won’t open their border with Gaza ?
AIUI there are probably three reasons

1. I think there's a treaty obligation that they have to have Israel's permission

2. They've no way of supporting two million refugees in the Sinai desert

3. They don't want to facilitate Israel evicting the Palestinians and thereby ethnically cleansing Gaza.

But I could be wrong.
 
For that to happen though Manchester would of had to go into ( Let's say ) Birmingham and say. " All this fuckin land is now ours, Those houses are no longer yours. Now form an orderly line while we lock you all up.
Another one framing the narrative as "these fucking Jews turned up out the blue and turfed these peaceful Arabs out at gunpoint". It makes a great story but it's plain, fucking wrong.

Let's reframe your analogy slightly therefore to make it more accurate.

Let's say Manchester & Birmingham were one territory, called Mercia for example, with two different tribes. The UK parliament votes to split Mercia and call one part 'Manchester' and the other 'Birmingham'.

Manchester is happy with that but Birmingham isn't and attacks Manchester. Not only that, they get Yorkshire, Northumbria and Wales to join in with them. Their intention is to wipe Mancunians out and throw them off the territory.

Against the odds Manchester holds out and even turns the tables somewhat, ending up in control of places like Stoke & Stafford. Some of those residents are forced out but others make their own decision to leave and decamp to Wolverhampton.
 
Another one framing the narrative as "these fucking Jews turned up out the blue and turfed these peaceful Arabs out at gunpoint". It makes a great story but it's plain, fucking wrong.

Let's reframe your analogy slightly therefore to make it more accurate.

Let's say Manchester & Birmingham were one territory, called Mercia for example, with two different tribes. The UK parliament votes to split Mercia and call one part 'Manchester' and the other 'Birmingham'.

Manchester is happy with that but Birmingham isn't and attacks Manchester. Not only that, they get Yorkshire, Northumbria and Wales to join in with them. Their intention is to wipe Mancunians out and throw them off the territory.

Against the odds Manchester holds out and even turns the tables somewhat, ending up in control of places like Stoke & Stafford. Some of those residents are forced out but others make their own decision to leave and decamp to Wolverhampton.

So in your scenario the vanquished, even if not combatants, are relocated either by force or under their own volition? Sounds like a a recipe for future conflict that’s as the banished seek a return to their property.
 
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.

Surely Hamas and Hezbollah are a product of the conditions under which Palestinian people are having to live though? Clearly nobody condones the massacre and gleeful murder/torture of Israeli civilians, but I am keen to understand what the correct response iswhen Israeli forces are bulldozing Palestinian settlements and dispossessing Palestinian people in contravention of international law? What is the correct response to blockades? Israeli forces have unlawfully killed and injured Palestinian civilians who have protested against having their land confiscated. The IDF regularly engages in the harassment and intimidation of the civilian population. Surely the violence being inflicted on the Palestinian people is never going to be met with a non-violent response, but what kind of violence is acceptable to the international community?

A peaceful resolution/two state solution clearly can't involve a Hamas government going forward, but there's also no way that an ultra nationalist far right government like the one Israel currently has can move us to that point either.
 
Last edited:

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.