2023 Israel - Hamas / Hezbollah war

[GRALISTAIR]

China has now sent warships in the region. Potentially escalating the situation quickly.

China Deploys 6 Warships To Middle East Over Fears Israel Crisis Could Spark World War 3 | Sahara Reporters

China has deployed six warships to the Middle East as the conflict between Israel and Hamas escalates, according to reports. The 44th Naval Escort Task Force - from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Eastern Theatre - has been involved in routine operations in the region and spent several days...

saharareporters.com

 

[Yew]

It does seem that the article is getting a lot of mileage from a few Chinese ships are engaging in routine operations thousands of miles away in a completely different ocean.

 

[yorkie]

The state of Israel is acting appallingly.

I don't think I know anyone who condones their actions, at least I hope not (if I do, then I don't want anything further to do with them!)

The latest cover of Private Eye is absolutely spot on:

Private Eye Covers Library

The official site for Private Eye magazine, the UK's number one best-selling news and current affairs publication edited by Ian Hislop. Subscribe to save money on the shop price and get delivery straight to your door.

www.private-eye.co.uk

Warning: This magazine may contain some criticism of the Israeli government and may suggest that killing everyone in Gaza as revenge for Hamas atrocities may not be a good long-term solution to problems of the region

Apparently some people are too blinkered to appreciate it.

We don't teach kids that two wrongs make a right and that a responsible action to one wrong is to disproportionately react in retaliation and to harm innocent bystanders, so how can an actual state be not only acting this way but also be supported by our appalling trashy Tory Government?

It's well known that the state of Israel commits war crimes; anyone supporting such actions is an absolute buffoon, so I hope Sunak and his ilk do even worse than previously predicted when we finally get the chance to vote them out.

Also I know it's been said before, let's not forget the state of Israel is run by a far right Government and not everyone in Israel supports them.

The far right do not solve problems; they make them worse. Much worse.

 

[nw1]

The state of Israel is acting appallingly.

I don't think I know anyone who condones their actions, at least I hope not (if I do, then I don't want anything further to do with them!)

The latest cover of Private Eye is absolutely spot on:

Private Eye Covers Library

The official site for Private Eye magazine, the UK's number one best-selling news and current affairs publication edited by Ian Hislop. Subscribe to save money on the shop price and get delivery straight to your door.

www.private-eye.co.uk

Apparently some people are too blinkered to appreciate it.

We don't teach kids that two wrongs make a right and that a responsible action to one wrong is to disproportionately react in retaliation and to harm innocent bystanders, so how can an actual state be not only acting this way but also be supported by our appalling trashy Tory Government?

It's well known that the state of Israel commits war crimes; anyone supporting such actions is an absolute buffoon, so I hope Sunak and his ilk do even worse than previously predicted when we finally get the chance to vote them out.

Also I know it's been said before, let's not forget the state of Israel is run by a far right Government and not everyone in Israel supports them.

The far right do not solve problems; they make them worse. Much worse.

Even if one is oblivious to the suffering in Gaza, it should be obvious, one would hope, that supporting Netanyahu's violent and over-the-top response leads to an increased risk of terrorism against the West.

Western governments should not be afraid to blatantly criticise Netanyahu for his extreme response, and order him to stop. For the good of all of us.

Yes, the original Hamas attack was an outrage. But it does not justify the response, which is essentially equivalent to the UK government bombing Catholic areas of Northern Ireland in response to IRA atrocities.

 

[DustyBin]

It does seem that the article is getting a lot of mileage from a few Chinese ships are engaging in routine operations thousands of miles away in a completely different ocean.

Indeed, it's a non-story really.

The state of Israel is acting appallingly.

I don't think I know anyone who condones their actions, at least I hope not (if I do, then I don't want anything further to do with them!)

The latest cover of Private Eye is absolutely spot on:

Private Eye Covers Library

The official site for Private Eye magazine, the UK's number one best-selling news and current affairs publication edited by Ian Hislop. Subscribe to save money on the shop price and get delivery straight to your door.

www.private-eye.co.uk

Apparently some people are too blinkered to appreciate it.

We don't teach kids that two wrongs make a right and that a responsible action to one wrong is to disproportionately react in retaliation and to harm innocent bystanders, so how can an actual state be not only acting this way but also be supported by our appalling trashy Tory Government?

It's well known that the state of Israel commits war crimes; anyone supporting such actions is an absolute buffoon, so I hope Sunak and his ilk do even worse than previously predicted when we finally get the chance to vote them out.

Also I know it's been said before, let's not forget the state of Israel is run by a far right Government and not everyone in Israel supports them.

The far right do not solve problems; they make them worse. Much worse.

I don't condone Israel's current actions as I can't see them resolving anything, and creating a humanitarian disaster by cutting off power and water is completely wrong in my opinion (and that of any reasonable observer surely?).

The question that nobody seems to be able to answer however is what should Israel do? They can no longer tolerate Hamas, which is understandable. Unfortunately, Hamas deliberately embed themselves within the civilian population of Gaza in order to maximise casualties from retaliatory action, and so the cycle of violence continues. I've no idea how to break that cycle, and seemingly neither does anyone else....

I'll admit that I'm quite surprised by the level of support Israel has for it's actions in the West; I had hoped that there'd be more calls for restraint by this point. (On that note, it's worth pointing out that the Labour leader has voiced strong support for Israel as well, so it's not only the government).

Even if one is oblivious to the suffering in Gaza, it should be obvious, one would hope, that supporting Netanyahu's violent and over-the-top response leads to an increased risk of terrorism against the West.

Western governments should not be afraid to blatantly criticise Netanyahu for his extreme response, and order him to stop. For the good of all of us.

Yes, the original Hamas attack was an outrage. But it does not justify the response, which is essentially equivalent to the UK government bombing Catholic areas of Northern Ireland in response to IRA atrocities.

I think the Northern Ireland analogy is a bit of a false equivalence for a number of reasons, although there are similarities in terms of violence breeding violence.

Israel isn't simply seeking retribution; they have a clear military objective designed to increase their future security. Again, I don't condone their actions and I can't see them achieving their ultimate aim, but I think it's useful to try and understand their motives. The same applies to the Palestinians of course (although Hamas specifically are simply hell bent on death and destruction, so there's not much to understand there).

 

[Bluejays]

I think/hope the unwavering support might come in useful after the hostilities end.

Personally I think it's hit the stage now where Israel are going to have to be pushed by their allies to reign in their settler movement and get rid of most of the settlements. I dare say that for the good of the Palestinians and for the long term good of Israel aswell, they are going to have to be pushed/forced to release Marwan barghouti. The actions of him/his groups haven't always matched his rhetoric. But his rhetoric is that Palestinians have a right to fight settlers and occupying soldiers but shouldn't attack inside Israel itself because they are neighbours. Interestingly , despite being locked up for years his approval ratings among Palestinians are far and above those of any Hamas/Fatah leader. If elections were held today they'd vote him president.

Hamas and Islamic jihad need to be devastated. But after that the Palestinians need to be given hope. Not the hope that too many of them cling to (fed by hamas and Islamic jihad) of wiping the Jews off the map. But the hope of their own prosperous state, living in peace with their neighbours. On the Israeli side, the settler movement need to be shut up or locked up.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The question that nobody seems to be able to answer however is what should Israel do?

Two things that come to mind that would seem reasonable:

1. If they feel the must invade Gaza to destroy Hamas, first provide a means for the Palestinian population to escape from Gaza. Set up temporary secure and safe camps on the Israeli side of the border where they will be looked after and provided for, and allow people to exit Gaza (obviously, being checked for weapons etc. first).
2. Ask the international community to intervene and for the UN to set up an administration in Gaza.

I'm sure both of those would have many practical problems. But either is fairer for the Palestinians and more likely in the long run to give Israel security than what they are currently doing.

And in either event, Israel should withdraw all settlers etc. to within its UN-recognised borders, and only have its troops leave those borders for legitimate military objectives.

 

[nw1]

The question that nobody seems to be able to answer however is what should Israel do? They can no longer tolerate Hamas, which is understandable. Unfortunately, Hamas deliberately embed themselves within the civilian population of Gaza in order to maximise casualties from retaliatory action, and so the cycle of violence continues. I've no idea how to break that cycle, and seemingly neither does anyone else....

I'll admit that I'm quite surprised by the level of support Israel has for it's actions in the West; I had hoped that there'd be more calls for restraint by this point. (On that note, it's worth pointing out that the Labour leader has voiced strong support for Israel as well, so it's not only the government).

I don't know what the answer is either but in my view it's a) morally deeply wrong for Netanyahu to inflict such suffering on the Palestinians, and cutting off electricity and water is beneath contempt, and b) strategically wrong if your goal is to reduce violence, as the situation is only going to cause new terrorist groups to appear even if Hamas does disappear.

It does seem to me that the west are "taking sides" too much in this conflict. And Netanyahu needs robust criticism from the west.

Unlike some of his predecessors in the role of Israel's PM, Netanyahu is never, in a million years, going to win the Nobel Peace Prize, that's for certain.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes, the original Hamas attack was an outrage. But it does not justify the response, which is essentially equivalent to the UK government bombing Catholic areas of Northern Ireland in response to IRA atrocities.

I think the Northern Ireland analogy is a bit of a false equivalence for a number of reasons, although there are similarities in terms of violence breeding violence.

I disagree. I think the Northern Ireland analogy is a good one in many respects. The UK government would have NEVER done anything like that.

Unlike some of his predecessors in the role of Israel's PM, Netanyahu is never, in a million years, going to win the Nobel Peace Prize, that's for certain.

I really don't think he is bothered by that.

 

[Mogster]

I disagree. I think the Northern Ireland analogy is a good one in many respects. The UK government would have NEVER done anything like that.


I really don't think he is bothered by that.

The IRA were never in control of NI the way Hamas are in Gaza. I think the UK governments response to the troubles would have been somewhat different if the IRA had been firing 1000s of rockets per year into English population centres.

 

[wilbers]

Two things that come to mind that would seem reasonable:

1. If they feel the must invade Gaza to destroy Hamas, first provide a means for the Palestinian population to escape from Gaza. Set up temporary secure and safe camps on the Israeli side of the border where they will be looked after and provided for, and allow people to exit Gaza (obviously, being checked for weapons etc. first).
2. Ask the international community to intervene and for the UN to set up an administration in Gaza.

I'm sure both of those would have many practical problems. But either is fairer for the Palestinians and more likely in the long run to give Israel security than what they are currently doing.

And in either event, Israel should withdraw all settlers etc. to within its UN-recognised borders, and only have its troops leave those borders for legitimate military objectives.

Can't see the first of those happening, if there are camps think they would have to be in Egypt, paid for by the international community, and a guarantee by Israel to let everyone (who isn't Hamas) to go back into Gaza after the Israel military operation has finished.

Second one of those might happen along with a rebuilding program, it needs something to stop a counter-insurgency, so UN controlled military forces, and a medium term plan for civilian control (if thats just Gaza, or if the dream of peaceful governance of West Bank and Gaza together can ever happen is crystal ball time).

 

[DustyBin]

Two things that come to mind that would seem reasonable:

1. If they feel the must invade Gaza to destroy Hamas, first provide a means for the Palestinian population to escape from Gaza. Set up temporary secure and safe camps on the Israeli side of the border where they will be looked after and provided for, and allow people to exit Gaza (obviously, being checked for weapons etc. first).

The security risk would be huge, and they'd be accused of setting up prison camps (or worse). Don't get me wrong, in theory this could be an option, but I think there are too many insurmountable obstacles in reality.

2. Ask the international community to intervene and for the UN to set up an administration in Gaza.

This could (and should) be an option. My understanding is that they have actually discussed a similar idea, whereby the Saudis (IIRC) would set up an administration, but somewhat predictably this fell foul of regional politics....

I'm sure both of those would have many practical problems. But either is fairer for the Palestinians and more likely in the long run to give Israel security than what they are currently doing.

Either would be preferable to the current approach, certainly.

And in either event, Israel should withdraw all settlers etc. to within its UN-recognised borders, and only have its troops leave those borders for legitimate military objectives.

Agreed.

I don't know what the answer is either but in my view it's a) morally deeply wrong for Netanyahu to inflict such suffering on the Palestinians, and cutting off electricity and water is beneath contempt, and b) strategically wrong if your goal is to reduce violence, as the situation is only going to cause new terrorist groups to appear even if Hamas does disappear.

It does seem to me that the west are "taking sides" too much in this conflict. And Netanyahu needs robust criticism from the west.

Unlike some of his predecessors in the role of Israel's PM, Netanyahu is never, in a million years, going to win the Nobel Peace Prize, that's for certain.

I don't disagree with any of this.

I disagree. I think the Northern Ireland analogy is a good one in many respects. The UK government would have NEVER done anything like that.

Imagine Northern Ireland had gained independence, and the administration decided to launch regular attacks against the UK mainland, resulting in thousands of deaths. How do you think the UK would have responded?

A hypothetical scenario obviously, and not a perfect analogy, but a better one than the reality of the troubles.

 

[brad465]

So the UN General made remarks about how this war did not happen in a vacuum, and that while Hamas' attacks were not justified, he highlighted the role Israel's occupation had played. This has led to Israel demanding his resignation, refusing calls from them and denying any officials visas. To me this does come across as arrogant from the Israeli regime:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67201465

1. Israel says it has denied a visa to top UN official Martin Griffiths, after comments from the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres
2. Guterres said the Hamas attacks on Israel did not happen "in a vacuum", saying there had been "56 years of suffocating occupation"
3. He also said "the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas"
4. In response, Israel's ambassador to the UN says Griffiths will not be allowed into Israel, and other UN staff "will be refused"
5. In Gaza, hospitals are stopping all but emergency services as fuel runs out
6. Israel is stopping new fuel supplies reaching Gaza, but accuses Hamas of stockpiling hundreds of thousands of litres
7. The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says almost 6,500 people had been killed since 7 October
8. More than 1,400 were killed in the initial attacks on Israel by Hamas, and more than 200 people are still being held hostage

 

[birchesgreen]

So the UN General made remarks about how this war did not happen in a vacuum, and that while Hamas' attacks were not justified, he highlighted the role Israel's occupation had played. This has led to Israel demanding his resignation, refusing calls from them and denying any officials visas. To me this does come across as arrogant from the Israeli regime:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67201465

Quite normal for a government when they get UN criticism, we don't take it well either. The anger and bluster is always a useful way to cover what was actually said.

 

[yorkie]

So the UN General made remarks about how this war did not happen in a vacuum, and that while Hamas' attacks were not justified, he highlighted the role Israel's occupation had played. This has led to Israel demanding his resignation, refusing calls from them and denying any officials visas. To me this does come across as arrogant from the Israeli regime:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67201465

The Israel regime is an absoute disgrace; they have no respect for international law.

It's also a disgrace how our (soon to be outgoing) Government are supporting them; this is yet another reason to add to the long list of things which Rishi and his ilk have done to make themselves even more unpopular than they were before!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The Israel regime is an absolute disgrace; they have no respect for international law.

It's also a disgrace how our (soon to be outgoing) Government are supporting them; this is yet another reason to add to the long list of things which Rishi and his ilk have done to make themselves even more unpopular than they were before!

The scary bit is how Joe Biden and his administration and many democrats (supposedly massively better than DJT who was going to start WW3 allegedly!!) are also supporting the Israelis both morally and with weapons etc.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The question that nobody seems to be able to answer however is what should Israel do?

I think this is the most difficult question of them all. My own, pie-in-the-sky proposals are this:

1) We establish a four state solution, as follows:

A: State of Israel within the borders of 1967, with some adjustments in the West Bank where there are undeniably Israeli towns on the edge of the pre-1967 State of Israel.
B: West Bank Palestine, internationally recognised and largely within the pre-1967 West Bank borders, minus a handful of exceptions. All settlements deep within the West Bank would be abandoned. Israel would cede control of the West Bank borders, particularly with Jordan.
C: Gaza City State, which would be under Arab control and designed to create a new Singapore in the region. Israel would fully disengage, including economically, with the US Dollar or similar strong currency used. The Arab countries would have responsibility for security and defence, with the goal of normalising relations between Gaza and Israel. The aim would be for independence to be granted within 10 years, but with the strict rule that any sort of political unification between Gaza and the West Bank Palestine state would be explicitly prohibited.
D: Neutral Jerusalem, which would be under UN control and function as a single city. Public services would be provided by separate Jewish and Arab municipalities operating within the city, with the UN acting as a neutral referee and overlord in case of dispute. The city would be legally separate from both Israel and West Bank Palestine, and the UN would be permitted to use force to ensure neutrality. The city itself would have its own legal system, including migration, and would function as a de facto independent city state. There would be no possibility of the city gaining independence, unless a majority of both Jewish and Arab residents consented.

2) A separation barrier is built with international cooperation to put an end to attacks. This should be as secure as possible to ensure both Israeli and Palestinian safety. The UN would provide a strong peacekeeping presence, with a buffer zone built between the two and monitored by UN authorities.

3) Gaza would have a functioning seaport and airport, while the Arab countries would take responsibility for building a new transit road to Gaza via Egypt and Jordan. The same would be with the West Bank.

The question is: what happens if Israel is then attacked despite all this? I don't know the answer.

 

[Noddy]

I disagree. I think the Northern Ireland analogy is a good one in many respects. The UK government would have NEVER done anything like that.

I don’t think that Northern Ireland is a good analogy. In the circa 30 year history of the troubles (late 60s-late 90s) about 1800 civilians died in total. Horrific as that is, at least 1000 Israeli (and other) civilians (plus many more non-civilians) died in a single 24-48 hour period starting 7th October. Since then at least 5800 people are reported to have been killed in Gaza, many of which are women and children. In my opinion the sheer number of casualties and the scale of the violence from both sides bear absolutely no comparison to Northern Ireland.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2023 ==

I think this is the most difficult question of them all. My own, pie-in-the-sky proposals are this:

1) We establish a four state solution, as follows:

A: State of Israel within the borders of 1967, with some adjustments in the West Bank where there are undeniably Israeli towns on the edge of the pre-1967 State of Israel.
B: West Bank Palestine, internationally recognised and largely within the pre-1967 West Bank borders, minus a handful of exceptions. All settlements deep within the West Bank would be abandoned. Israel would cede control of the West Bank borders, particularly with Jordan.
C: Gaza City State, which would be under Arab control and designed to create a new Singapore in the region. Israel would fully disengage, including economically, with the US Dollar or similar strong currency used. The Arab countries would have responsibility for security and defence, with the goal of normalising relations between Gaza and Israel. The aim would be for independence to be granted within 10 years, but with the strict rule that any sort of political unification between Gaza and the West Bank Palestine state would be explicitly prohibited.
D: Neutral Jerusalem, which would be under UN control and function as a single city. Public services would be provided by separate Jewish and Arab municipalities operating within the city, with the UN acting as a neutral referee and overlord in case of dispute. The city would be legally separate from both Israel and West Bank Palestine, and the UN would be permitted to use force to ensure neutrality. The city itself would have its own legal system, including migration, and would function as a de facto independent city state. There would be no possibility of the city gaining independence, unless a majority of both Jewish and Arab residents consented.

2) A separation barrier is built with international cooperation to put an end to attacks. This should be as secure as possible to ensure both Israeli and Palestinian safety. The UN would provide a strong peacekeeping presence, with a buffer zone built between the two and monitored by UN authorities.

3) Gaza would have a functioning seaport and airport, while the Arab countries would take responsibility for building a new transit road to Gaza via Egypt and Jordan. The same would be with the West Bank.

The question is: what happens if Israel is then attacked despite all this? I don't know the answer.

Agree with everything here. Unfortunately the last question is the key issue which frankly I suspect no-one anywhere knows how to solve.

 

[ATS3]

Two things that come to mind that would seem reasonable:

1. If they feel the must invade Gaza to destroy Hamas, first provide a means for the Palestinian population to escape from Gaza. Set up temporary secure and safe camps on the Israeli side of the border where they will be looked after and provided for, and allow people to exit Gaza (obviously, being checked for weapons etc. first).
2. Ask the international community to intervene and for the UN to set up an administration in Gaza.

I'm sure both of those would have many practical problems. But either is fairer for the Palestinians and more likely in the long run to give Israel security than what they are currently doing.

And in either event, Israel should withdraw all settlers etc. to within its UN-recognised borders, and only have its troops leave those borders for legitimate military objectives.

Or 3, stop killing innocent Palestinians and Israelis and either agree to a 2 state solution with a city state of Jerusalem being independent like the Vatican or 1, which recognizes both as equal, then disband Hamas either forcefully or peacefully.

 

[yorkie]

So the UN General made remarks about how this war did not happen in a vacuum...

Indeed; some people try to erroneously claim that it did and that is just bonkers.

In other news:

Israel-Gaza: Sacked Wix worker should seek legal advice, says Varadkar

The woman should seek advice if she was sacked by Wix for her political views, Ireland's leader says.

www.bbc.co.uk

• Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Leo Varadkar says he would encourage an Irish worker sacked over a social media post on the Israel-Gaza war to seek legal advice if her dismissal was related to her political views
• Courtney Carey was dismissed by Israeli firm Wix after branding Israel "a terrorist state"
• The company's president said she was dismissed after sharing "inflammatory" comments

I don't see how it is "inflammatory" to state that Israel is a terrorist state; it clearly is.

Isreal is a terrorist state who does not respect international law; if anyone thinks that is the slightest bit controversial then they are either unaware of what the state of Israel is up to or they are a fool or they are deluded.

(For balance, I will also state that yes of course Hamas is a terrorist organisation but I don't think anyone who isn't completely insane is claiming otherwise)

 

[GusB]

Israel's response to the UN is not unsurprising; they've been ignoring the various resolutions for years. It's high time that the "west" stopped pandering to its pathetic cries of "self-defence". They cannot claim self-defence when they're systematically pushing Palestinians off their land and making it impossible for ordinary people to go about their business. We've been sitting on our arses for years and failed to condemn what Israel is doing, for fear of being labelled as "anti-semitic".

The hardline Israelis are every bit as bad as the nutters in Hamas. It doesn't really matter who kills who - nothing is going to be fixed as long as the likes of Netanyahu and his genocidal maniacs are in power. I really wish that people would stop referring to the murderous **** as "Bibi" or "Benji" as if it was a cute labrador. He needs to be removed from power and soon (by whatever means).

 

[Bluejays]

Israel's response to the UN is not unsurprising; they've been ignoring the various resolutions for years. It's high time that the "west" stopped pandering to its pathetic cries of "self-defence". They cannot claim self-defence when they're systematically pushing Palestinians off their land and making it impossible for ordinary people to go about their business. We've been sitting on our arses for years and failed to condemn what Israel is doing, for fear of being labelled as "anti-semitic".

The hardline Israelis are every bit as bad as the nutters in Hamas. It doesn't really matter who kills who - nothing is going to be fixed as long as the likes of Netanyahu and his genocidal maniacs are in power. I really wish that people would stop referring to the murderous **** as "Bibi" or "Benji" as if it was a cute labrador. He needs to be removed from power and soon (by whatever means).

Referring to Netanyahu as Bibi or Benji is not an attempt to 'make him cute'. They've been his 'nicknames ' while he's been in the public eye for decades. The people using those names are probably just people who had a bit of an idea about this part of the globe before October 7th.

As for him being removed from power, I'm sure that will happen democratically quite shortly after the war. Interested to hear what you mean by 'whatever means'.

Also, surprising to hear about 'genocidal lunatics' and yet not hear the names of smotrich and ben gvir mentioned. If you think Bibi's bad then maybe you should Google those guys.

I'm no fan of Netanyahu, but every time he has attempted to destroy peace he has always had willing and more bloodthirsty partners on the Palestinian side. These consistent attempts to try and drag it all back to a base scenario where Israel holds sole blame at the root cause are inaccurate and morally wrong.

 

[nw1]

Israel's response to the UN is not unsurprising; they've been ignoring the various resolutions for years. It's high time that the "west" stopped pandering to its pathetic cries of "self-defence". They cannot claim self-defence when they're systematically pushing Palestinians off their land and making it impossible for ordinary people to go about their business. We've been sitting on our arses for years and failed to condemn what Israel is doing, for fear of being labelled as "anti-semitic".

I had that theory on why the West (well, Western governments at least) are seemingly being one-sided in this conflict so I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Complete rubbish of course, criticising Netanyahu does not make you anti-Semitic any more than criticising Erdogan makes you Islamophobic, or criticising Braverman makes you racist.

 

[DustyBin]

Referring to Netanyahu as Bibi or Benji is not an attempt to 'make him cute'. They've been his 'nicknames ' while he's been in the public eye for decades. The people using those names are probably just people who had a bit of an idea about this part of the globe before October 7th.

I found it rather odd to be honest, but it appears you’re correct. It’s not an “affectionate” term by any stretch of the imagination!

As for him being removed from power, I'm sure that will happen democratically quite shortly after the war. Interested to hear what you mean by 'whatever means'.

I suspect he’s on borrowed time, politically.

I’d also be interested to know what @GusB meant “by whatever means”, noting that Israel is a functioning democracy.

Also, surprising to hear about 'genocidal lunatics' and yet not hear the names of smotrich and ben gvir mentioned. If you think Bibi's bad then maybe you should Google those guys.

“Genocidal maniacs” is pure hyperbole. Whilst the Israeli government certainly appears to place little value on Palestinian lives, they’re not trying to commit genocide.

(For actual “genocidal maniacs” look no further than Hamas.)

I'm no fan of Netanyahu, but every time he has attempted to destroy peace he has always had willing and more bloodthirsty partners on the Palestinian side. These consistent attempts to try and drag it all back to a base scenario where Israel holds sole blame at the root cause are inaccurate and morally wrong.

I completely agree with this.

I really don’t understand how people can come out so strongly in support of either side, when neither can claim any kind of moral high ground. (I’m talking generally here, not specifically in relation to the events of the 7th of October, for which Hamas and their “handlers” are solely responsible).

I had that theory on why the West (well, Western governments at least) are seemingly being one-sided in this conflict so I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I think it’s down to geopolitics to be honest, rather than fear of being accused of antisemitism.

Complete rubbish of course, criticising Netanyahu does not make you anti-Semitic any more than criticising Erdogan makes you Islamophobic, or criticising Braverman makes you racist.

Agreed; it’s a lazy and unhelpful way of shutting down debate.

 

[Mogster]

Reports are that hundreds of the thousands of rockets being fired at Israel are falling short and landing in Gaza. If this is correct it seems Hamas also don’t appear to place much value on Palestinian lives.

US spy agencies believe hospital blast caused by Palestinian rocket that broke apart after engine failure, officials say

The death toll was purportedly in the hundreds and it sparked anger across the Arab world - but Israel was quick to deny any involvement.

news.sky.com

Palestinian rockets often misfire and miss their intended targets, the intelligence official said.

"The failure rate for these domestically produced rockets is pretty high," they added. "There are a lot of incidents in which they don't make it out of Gaza. They land in the sea, they fail to reach their targets."

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suspect he’s on borrowed time, politically.

I hope that you're right and that Netanyahu will be finished politically so someone more reasonable can take charge in Israel. But I'm puzzled at the confidence that you and others have in this: All my experience is that when a country has a national crisis or is attacked, public opinion invariably swings firmly behind (a) the Government (even if the situation partly arose due to previous Government failings), and (b) whoever is proposing to deal most hawkishly with the situation. Examples: Falklands in the UK, 911 in UK and USA, Covid in UK, Russian invasion in Ukraine. I'm not sure why people think that Netanyahu will be an exception to this pattern?

 

[Yew]

I hope that you're right and that Netanyahu will be finished politically so someone more reasonable can take charge in Israel. But I'm puzzled at the confidence that you and others have in this: All my experience is that when a country has a national crisis or is attacked, public opinion invariably swings firmly behind (a) the Government (even if the situation partly arose due to previous Government failings), and (b) whoever is proposing to deal most hawkishly with the situation. Examples: Falklands in the UK, 911 in UK and USA, Covid in UK, Russian invasion in Ukraine. I'm not sure why people think that Netanyahu will be an exception to this pattern?T

The UK and Neville Chamberlain in WWII?

 

[DustyBin]

Reports are that hundreds of the thousands of rockets being fired at Israel are falling short and landing in Gaza. If this is correct it seems Hamas also don’t appear to place much value on Palestinian lives.

Yes, this is well documented. It’s no surprise really when you consider the improvised nature of these rockets.

I hope that you're right and that Netanyahu will be finished politically so someone more reasonable can take charge in Israel. But I'm puzzled at the confidence that you and others have in this: All my experience is that when a country has a national crisis or is attacked, public opinion invariably swings firmly behind (a) the Government (even if the situation partly arose due to previous Government failings), and (b) whoever is proposing to deal most hawkishly with the situation. Examples: Falklands in the UK, 911 in UK and USA, Covid in UK, Russian invasion in Ukraine. I'm not sure why people think that Netanyahu will be an exception to this pattern?

Netanyahu was unpopular before the latest terror attack and increasingly looked to be clinging to power. You make a fair point in regard to people supporting their government in times of crisis, but when the dust settles Netanyahu will still face all of the issues he faced before, plus some very awkward questions as to how this could happen. I’m honestly struggling to see how he can gain any long-term political capital out of this situation.

Obviously we don’t know when the dust is going to settle, or what the result will look like, but I think there’s a good chance that the Israeli people will want a change of direction as opposed to more of the same.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Agree with everything here. Unfortunately the last question is the key issue which frankly I suspect no-one anywhere knows how to solve.

Yes, I think a huge part of the problem is that violence on both sides has become so ingrained that there's no way out of it. The only possible solution I can see is an agreement between Israel and the more responsible Arab countries to place the West Bank and Gaza under UN control, with the Arab countries taking the lead. But they don't seem particularly willing to do so, and in the region, Jordan and Syria both have large amounts of Palestinian refugees while Egypt simply doesn't want them.

Still, I maintain that the only way that lasting peace can ever be achieved is by an agreement between Israel and the leading powers in the region.

 

[nw1]

I hope that you're right and that Netanyahu will be finished politically so someone more reasonable can take charge in Israel. But I'm puzzled at the confidence that you and others have in this: All my experience is that when a country has a national crisis or is attacked, public opinion invariably swings firmly behind (a) the Government (even if the situation partly arose due to previous Government failings), and (b) whoever is proposing to deal most hawkishly with the situation. Examples: Falklands in the UK, 911 in UK and USA, Covid in UK, Russian invasion in Ukraine. I'm not sure why people think that Netanyahu will be an exception to this pattern?

Mind you crises don't necessarily equate to people supporting the government. If enough Israelis believe Netanyahu's actions will lead to a greater chance of terrorist attacks on Israel (and that is certainly my view), then he's not going to do so well.

I also find that any sympathy towards the Government in a crisis situation is temporary, and drains away when people realise the attempted cure is worse than the problem. People might have briefly supported Bush in the immediate week or two after 9/11, but after he decided to declare war on Afghanistan (thus risking further retaliatory terrorist attacks as well as obviously hurting innocent Afghan people) I suspect sympathy dropped away markedly and turned to anger - and that was certainly the case in the 2003 Iraq war.

I actually think the current situation has parallels to 9/11. Initial sympathy towards Israel after the Hamas attacks has turned, for many, to anger at Netanyahu due to his over-the-top response. The same would go for 9/11 and Bush, arguably. Hawks are misguided and their attempts to solve problems violently cause nothing but trouble.