• This topic has 864 replies, 97 voices, and was last updated 4 days ago by DrJ.
Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 865 total)
  • Gaza
  • 3
    thols2
    Free Member

    For what it’s worth I think Isreal is committing genocide

    Genocide has a legal definition, part of which is intent. Proving genocide is difficult (especially given that Israel has nuclear weapons and could exterminate every Palestinian within minutes if that really was their intent.) However, war crimes and human rights abuses are much easier to prosecute.

    The problem, though, is that trying to prosecute Israeli soldiers or leaders for war crimes or human rights abuses would also require prosecuting Hama for their crimes (plus, of course Iranian’s, Syrians, Turks, Saudis, etc.) If only Israelis were prosecuted in a region overflowing with human rights abuses, the defense lawyers’ first question would be, “Why are only Jews on trial?” Why not Syrian or Saudi or Iranian leaders? And why not Hamas leaders?

    Russia and China have seats on the U.N. Security Counsel. Are they going to vote to send U.N. troops into a sovereign country to arrest political and military leaders on human rights abuses for trial in an international court? (The answer is “no,” it’s a rhetorical question.)

    1
    pondo
    Full Member

    “You can read a translation of the Hamas Covenant here:”

    Just as a point of order, the 1988 Hamas charter has been superceded – the updated version (2017, is it? Or ’18?) no longer calls for the destruction of Israel.

    1
    pondo
    Full Member

    “if we ( Britain ) had not given Palestine to the Jewish people after world war 1, would the area be in such a horrific state ?”

    Probably not? In gifting large swathes of land to what would become Isrsel, we kind of forgot to ask what the people who already lived there thought.

    5
    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    Just as a point of order, the 1988 Hamas charter has been superceded – the updated version (2017, is it? Or ’18?) no longer calls for the destruction of Israel.

    poor use of version control to be added to the charge sheet!

    thols2
    Free Member

    if we ( Britain ) had not given Palestine to the Jewish people after world war 1, would the area be in such a horrific state ?

    Nobody knows, it’s the butterfly effect. Yes, the UK has huge responsibility for setting it all up, but we have absolutely no way of knowing what the alternative timeline would be like. The problem for policy makers is that we are locked into this timeline and have to deal with the situation we inherited. We can’t undo what happened 100 years ago, we have to find some way to make the future better given the hand we were dealt.

    1
    thols2
    Free Member

    Just as a point of order, the 1988 Hamas charter has been superceded – the updated version (2017, is it? Or ’18?) no longer calls for the destruction of Israel.

    The October 8 attacks superceded that – Hamas have made it very clear what they are about. They are not interested in a peace deal, their aim is to drive Jews out of the region.

    Don’t confuse Hamas for Palestinians. You can support Palestinians’ right to have a state but oppose Hamas, just like you can oppose right-wing Israeli settlers but support the right for Israel to exist.

    6
    kelvin
    Full Member

    I could describe them but I doubt the complete and utter lack of humanity on display would be believed.

    My thoughts and feelings about what happened then is completely coloured by what was aired on TV in the USA soon afterwards (where I was staying)… they were prepared to show stuff from those attacks that UK TV never would. Yes, of course, there is footage just as vile from before and after the attacks of the hell that people have been through all over Palestine and Israel… but what happened that week wasn’t a “protest”, it wasn’t war, it was terrorism of the worst kind, and it would have been impossible for the Israeli authorities not to respond. Their response was wrong and futile, and the human cost horrific in my opinion… they’re shouldn’t have gone after Hamas… there is no way of doing so that doesn’t sacrifice huge numbers of innocents… but how could an Israeli military response have been avoided? Send in security forces from a third country? Who would have been prepared to go in there?

    4
    nickc
    Full Member

    Just as a point of order, the 1988 Hamas charter has been superceded – the updated version (2017, is it? Or ’18?) no longer calls for the destruction of Israel.

    When the Hamas attacks in October became widely known, the Iranian Parliament all stood up and chanted “Death to Israel” Read about it here.

    So yeah, it’s been taken off the manifesto, I don’t think it’s made much of a difference. It’s one of the ironies of the struggle for peace. No one thinks that you can have any sort of lasting peace without Hamas’ inclusion in some form; on the other hand, Hamas don’t want lasting peace with Israel at any price…

    pondo
    Full Member

    “The October 8 attacks superceded that – Hamas have made it very clear what they are about. They are not interested in a peace deal, their aim is to drive Jews out of the region.”

    Nope. But if you’re saying Hamas’s charter calls for the destruction of Isrsel, I’m telling you it doesn’t. In 1988, yes – now, no. The 2017 charter advocates for a Palestine based on the 1967 borders.

    “Don’t confuse Hamas for Palestinians. You can support Palestinians’ right to have a state but oppose Hamas, just like you can oppose right-wing Israeli settlers but support the right for Israel to exist.”

    What do you think I believe? :)

    1
    pondo
    Full Member

    “So yeah, it’s been taken off the manifesto, I don’t think it’s made much of a difference. It’s one of the ironies of the struggle for peace. No one thinks that you can have any sort of lasting peace without Hamas’ inclusion in some form; on the other hand, Hamas don’t want lasting peace with Israel at any price…”

    I think it’s a fundamentally crucial difference – a Hamas that pledges the destruction of Israel will never get what it wants, but a Hamas that accepts a 2 state solution just might.

    3
    thols2
    Free Member

    But if you’re saying Hamas’s charter calls for the destruction of Isrsel, I’m telling you it doesn’t.

    Actions speak louder than words. October 8 showed what Hamas is about.

    5
    nickc
    Full Member

    but a Hamas that accepts a 2 state solution just might.

    The cold blooded murder of 1200 people is pretty odd opening gambit for negotiations. Hamas is a tool of Iran. Take a look at Iran, that’s what Palestine would be if Hamas was in charge in a 2 state solution. Do you think Israel would allow that on its border?

    Like I said, there’s no chance any Israeli govt would go into an election on a manifesto of negotiating with Hamas for peace, while at the same time; Hamas will have to be involved in some way if there’s to be lasting peace.

    3
    pondo
    Full Member

    “Actions speak louder than words. October 8 showed what Hamas is about.”

    October 9 through to April 5 does exactly the same for Israel.

    That’s kind of the bizarre thing about this whole mess – each side at the extreme end is as bad as the other, and the solution lies somewhere in the middle. For as long as neither side is willing to make a concession, neither will know peace.

    1
    pondo
    Full Member

    “The cold blooded murder of 1200 people is pretty odd opening gambit for negotiations. Hamas is a tool of Iran. Take a look at Iran, that’s what Palestine would be if Hamas was in charge in a 2 state solution. Do you think Israel would allow that on its border?”

    Yet without Israeli oppression of Palestine, there would be no Hamas. It’s a mess they’ve created themselves. It takes two sides to negotiate, and neither seems particularly willing to.

    “Like I said, there’s no chance any Israeli govt would go into an election on a manifesto of negotiating with Hamas for peace, while at the same time; Hamas will have to be involved in some way if there’s to be lasting peace.”

    Strong agree. Rabin and Arafat both got Nobel peace prizes for agreeing the bones of a 2 state solution – for Rabin (who’d been chief of staff of the IDF in 1967) it meant assasination and the swift removal from power of his party.

    5lab
    Full Member

    Jews make up 2% of the American population. I don’t think it is unreasonable to state that, compared to the size of the population, American foreign policy has a lot of pro-jewish influence. That’s not to say it’s through back channels or a conspiracy, it’s demonstratable in the amount of funding that heads towards israel

    4
    thols2
    Free Member

    each side at the extreme end is as bad as the other,

    Yes, but Israel is a democracy and Netanyahu can be voted out of power peacefully (and put on trial and imprisoned for his corruption). Hamas is a different thing, they can’t be voted out of power peacefully. A peace treaty can only be negotiated by moderates who are willing to accept that the other side has legitimate interests. Right-wing Israelis can’t be part of a peace negotiation, neither can Hamas. Problem is, an Israeli government can be voted out of power, Hamas will only leave at gunpoint.

    pondo
    Full Member

    An Israeli government can put Hamas out of business, if it chooses.

    1
    kelvin
    Full Member

    Yet without Israeli oppression of Palestine, there would be no Hamas.

    The Muslim Brotherhood and the violence that it promoted against Jews spread across the whole region, and was never limited to Israel. The modern day groups, such as Hamas, that continue their cause through violent means are not unique to Israel and Palestine today either.

    An Israeli government can put Hamas out of business, if it chooses.

    How?

    2
    PJay
    Free Member

    I could be wrong, but I thought that Hamas had been elected in Gaza (beating Fatah).

    kelvin
    Full Member

    You’re not wrong.

    5
    thols2
    Free Member

    I could be wrong, but I thought that Hamas had been elected in Gaza (beating Fatah).

    They came to power through an election, but then they established a repressive autocracy and refused to hold any more elections. Saying that they have democratic legitimacy is like saying that Hitler had democratic legitimacy because he initially came to power by being elected. The problem is what they did after being elected. Voting them out of power is not an option because they refuse to allow democratic opposition.

    PJay
    Free Member

    Fair enough, I wasn’t aware of that, thank you.

    pondo
    Full Member

    “The Muslim Brotherhood and the violence that it promoted against Jews spread across the whole region, and was never limited to Israel. The modern day groups, such as Hamas, that continue their cause through violent means are not unique to Israel and Palestine today either.”

    I don’t doubt. It was a pretty fringe group until 1967, though.

    “”An Israeli government can put Hamas out of business, if it chooses.”

    “How?”

    Hamaa exists because Palestine is oppressed. End the oppression.

    4
    DrJ
    Full Member

     I, like very many of my Israeli colleagues, do not support some of the actions and decision-making displayed by the IDF but there has to be a realisation that as utterly shit as it is, in war there will always be civilian casualties.

    There was an item on Channel 4 News last night about how the IDF wait until minor Hamas people get home and then bomb their houses, killing the family and (maybe) the target. Apparently this goes by the name of “Where’s Daddy”. This is not “collateral damage” in my view, it’s depraved blood lust that cannot be justified under any circumstances.

    1
    thols2
    Free Member

    There was an item on Channel 4 News last night about how the IDF wait until minor Hamas people get home and then bomb their houses, killing the family and (maybe) the target. Apparently this goes by the name of “Where’s Daddy”. This is not “collateral damage” in my view, it’s depraved blood lust that cannot be justified under any circumstances.

    It’s really difficult to know what official Israeli policy is. The movie Munich is an excellent example of Israel’s strategic failure on this sort of thing. Their policy is based on deterrence, so any attack on Israel will face a disproportionate response (this is the moral dilemma of deterrence – it’s justified on the basis that it deters a greater evil, but for it to work, it requires a disproportionate response.). The moral aspect isn’t the only issue here, the problem is that it doesn’t seem to have actually deterred attacks on Israel. So, Israel based their security strategy on a deterrence theory that has never actually worked against non-state opponents and now their response is handcuffed by those decades of reliance on deterrence (the evidence on nuclear deterrence against other countries is a different matter.)

    4
    tjagain
    Full Member

    Yes, but Israel is a democracy and Netanyahu can be voted out of power

    Pseudo democracy.  Try exercising democratic rights if you are arab.

    7
    Poopscoop
    Full Member

    One thing is for sure.

    Israel’s response (it’s government) will create another 10 fighters for every Hamas terrorist they kill.

    Kids barely old enough to hold a pencil will grow up longing to hold a rifle instead.

    Short term Israel’s response is tragically disproportionate and long term it has done more to recruit Hamas fighters than all the Hamas propaganda in the world could ever do.

    Israel has a right to respond to an horrific terrorist attack but tragically, it’s arguably managed to attain moral parity.

    On that note, I’ve not got anything else to say.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    Yes, but Israel is a democracy and Netanyahu can be voted out of power

    Can we conclude from this that the majority of Israelis are in favour of the slaughter?  Whereas the citizens of Gaza have not approved the actions of Hamas at the ballot box.

    2
    dissonance
    Full Member

    I could be wrong, but I thought that Hamas had been elected in Gaza (beating Fatah).

    In 2007 at which point they stopped holding elections perhaps because their majority wasnt exactly sweeping. It made the brexit referendum look like will of the people with 44.45% for Hamas vs 41.43% for Fatah.
    Israel could possibly do a deal with the clans to help get rid of Hamas but they would need to offer some improvements and unfortunately with the current extremist government that isnt going to happen.
    An balancing act they could have done whilst attacking Gaza would have been to offer improvements to the west bank. Unfortunately though if anything they have upped their land theft and acts of violence there as well. Indeed it seems part of why Hamas inflicted so much damage was the Israeli army were diverted to helping out the extremist settlers in the west bank.

    3
    thols2
    Free Member

    Pseudo democracy.  Try exercising democratic rights if you are arab.

    I think “troubled democracy” is a more useful term, similarly to Turkey, for example. They have a democratic structure, but are drifting towards autocracy. I’m deeply pessimistic about the direction that both those countries are taking, but it’s not impossible that they will reverse and become more liberal. The plight of Palestinians rests pretty directly on keeping Israel as a liberal democracy so promoting that needs to be a major priority – same goes for Turkey. In a region full of unelected autocracies, flawed democracies are better than the alternative.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    thols2 :

    In international relations, the answer is always, “It’s complicated.”

    Part of it, as I understand it, is that the Egyptian-Israeli peace deal that was sorted out in the 1970s guaranteed that the U.S. would provide military aid to both countries. Prior to that, there were major wars in 1956, 1967, and 1973 (plus of course, the 1948 war that established Israel as a country.) Israel won all of those wars and Egypt suffered huge losses. In the 1970s, Israel developed nuclear weapons as an open secret. That made the Arab League’s goal of destroying Israel a suicide pact – if Arab countries did succeed in destroying Israel, their own cities would be incinerated in nuclear fireballs.

    You can thank Germany for providing them with the equipment and knowledge to start on a nuclear program, along with submarines that hold ballistic missiles. It’s in my link above yours.

    alpin
    Free Member

    This comes from a belief that ultimately Gaza will be rebuilt and there will be a managed return for all the displaced civilians.

    Doubt there will be many Palestinians around given the there are Jewish organisations already selling off the newly claimed lands.

    and am i right in think the we and the Jewish state that was formed after world war 2 are to blame really for the entire shitshow.

    Think Germany might be partly to blame. Should have given the Jewish population Bielefeld or the state of Hessen.

    thols2
    Free Member

    You can thank Germany for providing them with the equipment and knowledge to start on a nuclear program

    Nuclear weapons were only invented once, in the U.S., heavily influenced by work by Jewish refugees from Hitler. That design was then leaked to the USSR, so the first Soviet A-bomb was just a copy of the US Fatman bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. Every nuclear bomb program since has been based on leaks from existing programs.

    1
    somafunk
    Full Member

    My thoughts and feelings about what happened then is completely coloured by what was aired on TV in the USA soon afterwards (where I was staying)… they were prepared to show stuff from those attacks that UK TV never would.

    The attack by Hamas and the 9 associated factions was utterly horrific and there is no excuse for attacking what is primarily an occupying civilian population as they did – the occupying military force and the machinations of the state are legitimate targets under ICRG law set out by the Red Cross but I have to take issue with the vile propaganda that Israel deployed afterwards – talk of dozens of beheaded babies, some placed in ovens and cooked, multiple rapes of all the women, babies cut from pregnant mothers and such like.

    This has been verifiably debunked as false by multiple news agencies but once that thought has been implanted into the population of Israel then the hatred and desire for revenge at all costs is understandable, any amount of atrocities and rage can be justified against a population that “harboured” such terrorists.

    The sooner Palestine is recognised as a nation state then Israel WILL have to stop occupation and come to the negation table.

    I can recommend Palestine – Joe Sacco if you wish further reading, dont be put off by the fact it is a graphic novel 

    also Footnotes in Gaza – Joe Sacco

    somafunk
    Full Member

    Nuclear weapons were only invented once, in the U.S., heavily influenced by work by Jewish refugees from Hitler. That design was then leaked to the USSR, so the first Soviet A-bomb was just a copy of the US Fatman bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. Every nuclear bomb program since has been based on leaks from existing programs.

    That was not my point but yes , you are correct.

    If you have the time then do read the article I posted.

    alpin
    Free Member

    Yet without Israeli oppression of Palestine, there would be no Hamas. It’s a mess they’ve created themselves.

    Yet without Israel there would be no oppression of Palestine, therefore there would be no Hamas. It’s a mess we’ve created ourselves.

    TheFlyingOx
    Full Member

    Doubt there will be many Palestinians around given the there are Jewish organisations already selling off the newly claimed lands.

    I’m not denying it, and certainly the issue of settlements in the West Bank is ongoing, but I can’t find anything about Israel claiming/selling off land in Gaza. Mind posting a link?

    1
    kelvin
    Full Member

    multiple rapes of all the women

    Is that careful wording? Many women were raped, yes? Not “all” the women of course.

    I didn’t see footage of any of the things you describe. That wasn’t the kind of broadcasting I was talking about (this wasn’t Fox or any equivalent). But I don’t want to get into discussing the horrors of what was shown.

    alpin
    Free Member

    Israel’s response (it’s government) will create another 10 fighters for every Hamas terrorist they kill.

    Kids barely old enough to hold a pencil will grow up longing to hold a rifle instead.

    When the nazis were asked why they also killed the Jewish children they said that if they didn’t then those kids would grow up wanting to take revenge on them.

    10
    Full Member

    I don’t have much to add to the discussion, but I have been seeing a lot more cars around here with supporting Israel type stickers. Often along with the blue lives matter US flag, ‘Don’t tread on me’ or ‘Let’s go Brandon’ stickers. What this says about the people driving the car I’m not sure.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 865 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.