Middle East Conflict

[Blue Maverick]

Runs a lucrative business in Calais I hear.
Organises escorts & Coach pick ups as well

Pity he didn’t work in Istanbul in June

 

[blueinsa]

Sunak just repeating the same old line on PM questions about the Palestinian massacres. " Israel needs to defend itself" that shithouse Starmer has followed this same path too.

That’s because they do and they are both right.

The manner in which they defend themselves can be rightly questioned and challenged and that is rightly being done but to suggest both leaders are shithouses because they say Israel has a right to defend itself is ridiculous.

Both have very publicly said that innocent Palestinian civilians must be protected at all costs and that aid should be allowed in.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That’s because they do and they are both right.

The manner in which they defend themselves can be rightly questioned and challenged and that is rightly being done but to suggest both leaders are shithouses because they say Israel has a right to defend itself is ridiculous.

Both have very publicly said that innocent Palestinian civilians must be protected at all costs and that aid should be allowed in.

Have Israel suggested they’ve killed any of the Hamas leadership?

It certainly looks more like vengeance than defence and intelligence led precision bombing.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

That’s because they do and they are both right.

The manner in which they defend themselves can be rightly questioned and challenged and that is rightly being done but to suggest both leaders are shithouses because they say Israel has a right to defend itself is ridiculous.

Both have very publicly said that innocent Palestinian civilians must be protected at all costs and that aid should be allowed in.

Except innocent civilians aren't being protected at all costs.

Why would they still give unwavering support when Israel has proved it doesn't care about murdering children?

Unless of course they approved of those attrocities or didn't care about the murdered children.

 

[M18CTID]

Someone should just ask them how many civilian casualties are acceptable in the pursuit of revenge.

5,000? 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? There must be a number of civilian deaths where even politicians in the west decide that "we fully support any and all action Israel takes" stops working.

What if they fail to wipe out Hamas? What if you kill 20,000 civilians and in a years time everything is back to how it was in September, is that OK?

The way it's going, I think 20,000 civilian deaths could be on the low side if this carries on for long enough.

I fully get the issues Israel might have in taking out mainly only Hamas when their tactic is often to blend in with the civilian population but there is surely a better way of doing this that limits civilian deaths.

I'd be interested to know the split - so far - of Hamas deaths versus civilian deaths - because I suspect they've only taken out a very small percentage of Hamas terrorists since the bombing began.

 

[M18CTID]

Except innocent civilians aren't being protected at all costs.

Why would they still give unwavering support when Israel has proved it doesn't care about murdering children?

Unless of course they approved of those attrocities or didn't care about the murdered children.

I'm sure they do care and I'm sure they don't fully approve of the way Israel are continuing to go about this. However, I don't think they're going far enough in their messaging. Has any Western leader truly stuck their head above the parapet in calling out Israel though? This goes way beyond what our own PM and PM-elect are saying

 

[Eebo]

The two situations are wholly different. The one to which this thread relates is far more nuanced than one nation invading another. So the two responses aren’t necessarily inconsistent with each other.

Agreed the background, history and build up and politics may well be very different but I simply don't see how that makes the bombing of one country's civilians different to the bombing of another countries civilians.

I would genuinely like to understand better the rationale of how it is that the cause can be a justification, and also what it is Israel aim to achieve by this bombing other than vengeance. The BBC and our leaders certainly seem to think that the the cause makes it valid but it sits very uncomfortably with me.

If anything one would hope from more restraint from a civilised and democratic country than a terrorist state run by an autocratic gangster nonce.

We in Britain suffered years of terrorist action by the IRA but never responded like this and ultimately were able to make some form of peace in Northern Ireland. If we had responded by carpet bombing Republican areas of Derry and Belfast that would likely have been impossible.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Agreed the background, history and build up and politics may well be very different but I simply don't see how that makes the bombing of one country's civilians different to the bombing of another countries civilians.

I would genuinely like to understand better the rationale of how it is that the cause can be a justification, and also what it is Israel aim to achieve by this bombing other than vengeance. The BBC and our leaders certainly seem to think that the the cause makes it valid but it sits very uncomfortably with me.

If anything one would hope from more restraint from a civilised and democratic country than a terrorist state run by an autocratic gangster nonce.

We in Britain suffered years of terrorist action by the IRA but never responded like this and ultimately were able to make some form of peace in Northern Ireland. If we had responded by carpet bombing Republican areas of Derry and Belfast that would likely have been impossible.

Again I wholeheartedly get your point and would agree with you. But in making the comparison do you look back on your own views of a conflict closer to you the same or with hindsight do you view the nationalist cause differently.

I’m not trying to be smart as I don’t know yours or anyone else’s view on The Troubles. But taking that experience into the present it’s worth considering when trying to see all points of view. You don’t have to agree with the opposing point of view, but if you want progress it’s very much worth trying to understand it.

 

[Bradley82]

Someone should just ask them how many civilian casualties are acceptable in the pursuit of revenge.

5,000? 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? There must be a number of civilian deaths where even politicians in the west decide that "we fully support any and all action Israel takes" stops working.

What if they fail to wipe out Hamas? What if you kill 20,000 civilians and in a years time everything is back to how it was in September, is that OK?

I think they know what's going on but are so scared of being hit with the 'Antisemite' stick they wont speak up. The Jewish lobby must very powerful.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The way it's going, I think 20,000 civilian deaths could be on the low side if this carries on for long enough.

I fully get the issues Israel might have in taking out mainly only Hamas when their tactic is often to blend in with the civilian population but there is surely a better way of doing this that limits civilian deaths.

I'd be interested to know the split - so far - of Hamas deaths versus civilian deaths - because I suspect they've only taken out a very small percentage of Hamas terrorists since the bombing began.

I don't think there is any reliable info on Hamas deaths, and I doubt there ever will be.

I also doubt there is any way of killing a substantial proportion of Hamas fighters without killing civilians on a scale which implies committing war crimes, or at least will be seen as such by much of the world.

I would be amazed if the stated objective of "eliminating Hamas" can be achieved at all, and almost certainly not without committing a genocide against Gazans.

It's very hard to see what Israel's realistic endgame is here, much as I have every sympathy for their desire to eradicate the criminals who committed the appalling pogrom.