2023 Israel - Hamas / Hezbollah war

[GS250]

Theres a reason some are throwing in the 'anti-semitism' statement at the earliest opportunity. All they are doing is similar to what those on the left have done in the past. Accusations of 'racism', 'Islamophobia', 'Little Englander' etc were casually thrown in to the conversation with the obvious intention of stopping debate in its tracks. Even though in some cases there was a legitimate debate to be discussed.

Two wrongs don't make a right and I do believe some are using the term 'anti semetism' to justify any scrutiny of the IDF.

 

[DustyBin]

My view remains as above; if you read what was actually said, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. One side is very keen to say that anyone who uses particular words as part of a sentence or phrase means a particular thing, in order to deflect from the atrocities committed by Israel. We will have to agree to disagree.

I'm generally the first to defend freedom of speech, but I'm amazed that you can't see the issue here. Of all the terminology McDonald could have used he chose those words, which are deeply offensive to many Jews. Personally I believe he should be allowed to say "sorry, poor choice of words" and move on, but as you say we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't really get your point; the issue here is that Israel is behaving appallingly and this just comes across as an attempt to deflect from that, which I don't get. We should not accept their behaviour as in any way "inevitable".

It's certainly not an attempt to deflect and I'll readily acknowledge that Israel's actions are having an appalling impact on Palestinian civilians. I used the word "inevitable" very deliberately as that's how I see it; it doesn't imply Israel's actions are acceptable, however.

The problem as I see it is that the Israeli's have two choices; hit Hamas hard or do nothing. The latter isn't an option, not following a terror attack on the scale of October the 7th, which leaves only the first option. Unfortunately, Hamas deliberately embed themselves within the civilian population, making casualties unavoidable. I'm not comfortable with that (really I'm not), and any indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas is completely unacceptable, but these are Hamas's "rules".

Just to reiterate, I don't blindly support what Israel is doing, and I don't believe any good will come of it. The problem is the absence of a viable alternative. Doing nothing and allowing the rockets to rain down, and your citizens to be abducted, tortured and murdered really isn't an option. That leaves the current course of action which, selfishly from an Israeli point of view, probably feels like the lesser of two evils.

It's also foreseeable that antisemetism would rise as a result of Israel's actions, and that isn't OK either.

Agreed.

See above; I don't agree that what was actually said is objectionable.

Also see above; we'll have to agree to disagree.

This just sounds like excuses to justify Israel's inappropriate actions.

I'd say it's more a reality that perhaps you and I find difficult to fully understand?

I will agree with you on this part.

Again, agreed.

Fair enough.

That there is no obvious solution is no excuse for their actions; furthermore, the belief that Hamas can be "destroyed" is ridiculous.

Which actions? Indiscriminate bombing? Agreed. Targeting Hamas? I disagree. The problem is that there's a very large grey area between the two, courtesy of Hamas using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

I agree with your second point, as even if Hamas is destroyed an equivalent organisation will very likely take it's place. In fact, Israel's actions make this more likely, but they don't appear to be able to see past removing the immediate threat (not dissimilar to the US in Afghanistan).

Even if it's not 'analogous', the point stands that bombing innocent people is not an acceptable response; there is no need to debate equivalence (or lack of).

I agree. Any indiscriminate or "careless" bombing of civilians is a war crime, and is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree; see @DynamicSpirit's post above. I'd never heard of it before a few weeks ago, but you need to look at what was actually said, rather than falsely claim that anyone who says any particular words can be automatically be deemed to have a particular belief (especially when the context of what they said is completely at odds with this claimed meaning).

I was careful not to do exactly this. What I said is that unless McDonald has "form" (which I'm not aware he does), I'm willing to put it down to a poor choice of words, which it was. Others, including his boss, have been rather less charitable!

 

[hst43102]

Could you look at the above article and reconsider your views?

Alternatively, if you've changed your mind, I'd absolutely respect anyone who admits they were wrong to support the far-right Israeli regime.

Is there anyone who sees reports, such as the one below, of the effects on civilians, and still thinks Israel is acting lawfully, proportionally, appropriately, and honourably...?

Moment injured Gaza girl sees baby sister is alive

Five-year-old Joury and 18-month-old Julia reunite in hospital after a blast in southern Gaza.

www.bbc.co.uk

Absolutely, I must say that I have been very shocked and saddened by the amount of unnecessary civilian deaths in Gaza over the last few weeks, but unfortunately I can't see a feasible or realistic alternative to a targeted invasion of Gaza right now - of course none of us are in that situation and reports and news about the situation in the city are hazy at the moment so I couldn't say whether or not I would trust the safe zones if I were a civilian in Gaza.

I'd also like to make it clear that I have never supported, and will never support, the far-right regime in Israel - indeed I am hoping that one of the only positive outcomes of this conflict would be the democratic removal of Netanyahu and his political allies - his popularity has dropped since the attacks began so I hope this will be the case. Some of his rhetoric in the past couple of weeks has been shocking - especially the "time for war" speech - and I don't condone or support this in any way at all.

There was nothing wrong with what was actually said.

How would these people like it if their livelihoods were destroyed, if their homeland was occupied and oppressed and they were denied the right to a truly independent state?

It's a ridiculous argument, designed to deflect from the disgusting behaviour of Israel and the ludicrous amount of support this rogue state gets.

Whilst there may be nothing wrong with what was said by McDonald, I think his choice of words was poor at best, as these have been thrown around a lot over the past few weeks by truly anti-semitic rioters around the world. I don't disagree with his message at all, and I firmly disagree with his expulsion from the Labour party, but I can see why Starmer might be anxious to avoid claims of anti-semitism. Would you agree that his choice of words was inappropriate?
Would you also be able to clarify why Israel is a "rogue state" and how its actions are any worse than those of any other country going to war? What are your opinions on the state of Israel itself, rather than just its government?

Two wrongs don't make a right and I do believe some are using the term 'anti semetism' to justify any scrutiny of the IDF.

I have seen this happen a lot and I agree that it is wrong, criticism of the Israeli government or the actions of the IDF are separate from anti-semetism. I can't help but notice, however, that far too many people are using "anti-Zionism" as an excuse for saying virulently anti-semitic things, and this is only increasing.

 

[Bluejays]

There are many things Netanyahu says that I don't like. But I really don't see the issue with the 'time for war' comment. Israel is at war, in Gaza, on the lebanese border with Hezbollah and with the houthis who are firing ballistic missiles at them. I would fully expect Israel to be on a war footing right now.


As an aside, when the time comes for peace, as it may well might after the hostilities are over. I hope and imagine that Netanyahu won't be anywhere near the substantive peace talks. His 'strategy' of putting up with Hamas because he liked the Palestinians being divided has failed . He is yesterday's man and a dead man(politically) walking. Hamas commanders on the other hand are literal dead men walking, and by god do they deserve it.

 

[yorkie]

Absolutely, I must say that I have been very shocked and saddened by the amount of unnecessary civilian deaths in Gaza over the last few weeks, but unfortunately I can't see a feasible or realistic alternative to a targeted invasion of Gaza right now - of course none of us are in that situation and reports and news about the situation in the city are hazy at the moment so I couldn't say whether or not I would trust the safe zones if I were a civilian in Gaza.

I'm sorry but that's not good enough; when you say "I can't see a feasible or realistic alternative", you appear to be condoning Israel's actions?
And if you "can't say" if you'd trust them, you've clearly not been reading/viewing the news!

I'd also like to make it clear that I have never supported, and will never support, the far-right regime in Israel - indeed I am hoping that one of the only positive outcomes of this conflict would be the democratic removal of Netanyahu and his political allies - his popularity has dropped since the attacks began so I hope this will be the case. Some of his rhetoric in the past couple of weeks has been shocking - especially the "time for war" speech - and I don't condone or support this in any way at all.

Good, but you're still saying things I find disturbing.

Whilst there may be nothing wrong with what was said by McDonald, I think his choice of words was poor at best, as these have been thrown around a lot over the past few weeks by truly anti-semitic rioters around the world. I don't disagree with his message at all, and I firmly disagree with his expulsion from the Labour party, but I can see why Starmer might be anxious to avoid claims of anti-semitism. Would you agree that his choice of words was inappropriate?

I see nothing wrong with what he actually said; people like you and Starmer fussing over this while millions of people are suffering is absolutely ridiculous.

Unless Starmer changes course, I'm not going to be voting Labour due to this.

Would you also be able to clarify why Israel is a "rogue state" and how its actions are any worse than those of any other country going to war?

Are you serious? Words fail me!

What are your opinions on the state of Israel itself, rather than just its government?

What is that even supposed to mean? What are you asking? It's a vague question and smacks of distraction tactics on your part.

I have seen this happen a lot and I agree that it is wrong, criticism of the Israeli government or the actions of the IDF are separate from anti-semetism. I can't help but notice, however, that far too many people are using "anti-Zionism" as an excuse for saying virulently anti-semitic things, and this is only increasing.

To see the sort of thing that is going on in Israel, check this out:

https://twitter.com/dj_shy/status/1719747068669866027

Israeli police on Wednesday raided the anti-Zionist Jewish neighborhood in occupied #Jerusalem to take down Palestinian flags and brutally attacked anti-Zionist Jews, knocking them down on the road, hitting, and punching them in the face.

Make no mistake: the far-right Israeli regime are happy to attack Israelis who have opinions they don't agree with. I have the utmost respect for Israeli and/or Jewish people who stand up against the far-right Israeli government.

I don't know where this is, but if anyone is any doubt that there are a significant number of Jewish people who are against what the Israeli government is doing, this is the sort of video they should watch:

https://twitter.com/spookyasparagus/status/1718373422428979598

Jews against genocide
(video shows Jewish people with banners such as 'cease fire', 'free palestine')

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2023 ==

It's certainly not an attempt to deflect and I'll readily acknowledge that Israel's actions are having an appalling impact on Palestinian civilians. I used the word "inevitable" very deliberately as that's how I see it; it doesn't imply Israel's actions are acceptable, however.

Equally, you could have said that Israel's actions would inevitably have a negative impact on Jewish people throughout the world?

The problem as I see it is that the Israeli's have two choices; hit Hamas hard or do nothing.

That's a false dichotomy and in any case the actions cannot be justified on this sort of nonsensical logic.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in arguing with you; your position in seemingly partly(?) supporting Israel's actions is illogical and nonsensical, but it is also increasingly untenable.

 

[hst43102]

I'm sorry but that's not good enough; when you say "I can't see a feasible or realistic alternative", you appear to be condoning Israel's actions?
And if you "can't say" if you'd trust them, you've clearly not been reading/viewing the news!

I'm not condoning the bombing of civilians as such, but rather the principle of action against the perpetrators of terrorism. In this case, as Hamas are using civilians as human shields, that unfortunately means that civilians will be killed. Whether or not that is preventable is up for debate, but I don't think Israel should sit back and not take defensive action.

I see nothing wrong with what he actually said; people like you and Starmer fussing over this while millions of people are suffering is absolutely ridiculous.

By that logic nobody can care about anything at all, because people have always suffered around the world and unfortunately always will. My point is, the language used matters, I don't disagree with what McDonald said, but rather his choice of words. If you don't see a problem there I am afraid you are rather blind to the situation here.

Unless Starmer changes course, I'm not going to be voting Labour due to this.

In the nicest way possible, I personally wouldn't let a halfhearted reaction to events happening overseas dictate my choice of vote over here.

At the end of the day, Israel is a key ally of the UK and I don't think it is unreasonable for our government, opposition, and many British people, to support the defense of their country, if not the Israeli government.

Are you serious? Words fail me!

I'll repeat my question. Would you also be able to clarify why Israel is a "rogue state" and how its actions are any worse than those of any other country going to war?

What is that even supposed to mean? What are you asking? It's a vague question and smacks of distraction tactics on your part.

I'm genuinely interested to know whether or not you think that the state of Israel should exist, if it's a "rogue state". It's not distraction tactics at all, I'd just like to know your opinions so I have more context to understand what you are saying.

To see the sort of thing that is going on in Israel, check this out:

Make no mistake: the far-right Israeli regime are happy to attack Israelis who have opinions they don't agree with. I have the utmost respect for Israeli and/or Jewish people who stand up against the far-right Israeli government.

I don't think violence against civilians is a good approach in any situation, but one has to remember that this is a country at war. Flying flags and expressing support for an enemy shouldn't be tolerated in any country actively at war.

I don't know where this is, but if anyone is any doubt that there are a significant number of Jewish people who are against what the Israeli government is doing, this is the sort of video they should watch:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and some Jews are more pro-Palestine, others are more pro-Israel. In such a nuanced situation, both positions can be respectable, unlike in some other conflicts which are much more one-sided.

Equally, you could have said that Israel's actions would inevitably have a negative impact on Jewish people throughout the world?

I don't disagree, but not acting at all would have a much more negative impact.

That's a false dichotomy and in any case the actions cannot be justified on this sort of nonsensical logic.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in arguing with you; your position in seemingly partly(?) supporting Israel's actions is illogical and nonsensical, but it is also increasingly untenable.

If my logic is nonsensical, why can't you suggest a more sensible and feasible approach to this conflict instead of dodging my questions? I'm more than happy to have my mind changed on this topic if you can properly suggest why I should have a differing view.

 

[baza585]

I'm sorry but that's not good enough; when you say "I can't see a feasible or realistic alternative", you appear to be condoning Israel's actions?

I really cannot see how the OPs comments lead you to the conclusion that he/she is condoning Israel's actions. What other options do you think they had after 7 October?

Personally I find Hamas's actions in committing the atrocity on October 7 and then hiding behind the innocent people of Gaza (which is literally what they do) at least as reprehensible as what Israel has done and continues to do.

Incidentally Gaza might have less of a water shortage if Hamas hadn't dug up EU funded water pipes and repurposed them as rockets to fire into Israel.

 

[DustyBin]

Equally, you could have said that Israel's actions would inevitably have a negative impact on Jewish people throughout the world?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but yes it was/is inevitable that Israel's actions would lead to an increase in antisemitism in many parts of the world.

That's a false dichotomy and in any case the actions cannot be justified on this sort of nonsensical logic.

If it's a false dichotomy, what were the other options? No one seems to be able to offer anything up. Believe me, I've tried to think of something myself but I can't.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in arguing with you; your position in seemingly partly(?) supporting Israel's actions is illogical and nonsensical, but it is also increasingly untenable.

It's untenable to pick a side and go "all in" when both sides are at times as bad as each other. I wouldn't say I support Israel's actions, in fact I'd very much like them to stop what they're doing. How do you then deal with Hamas though? Or do you think Hamas and Israel can coexist?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

At the end of the day, Israel is a key ally of the UK and I don't think it is unreasonable for our government, opposition, and many British people, to support the defense of their country, if not the Israeli government.

Is it a key ally? What has Israel done recently to support the UK that might merit that description? Off the top of my head the main thing that comes to mind regarding Israel's recent foreign policy is their point blank refusal to provide any military support to Ukraine because Israel wants to keep on good terms with Putin's terrorist regime - and that definitely doesn't look like supporting the UK or the UK's interests in any way!

 

[brad465]

Is it a key ally? What has Israel done recently to support the UK that might merit that description? Off the top of my head the main thing that comes to mind regarding Israel's recent foreign policy is their point blank refusal to provide any military support to Ukraine because Israel wants to keep on good terms with Putin's terrorist regime - and that definitely doesn't look like supporting the UK or the UK's interests in any way!

Even this wasn't enough to keep Israel on good terms with Russia; the attempted pogrom at Dagestan airport showing that (even though the authorities acted to stop it, it's still not a good look). This is of course on top of the fact Russia has been aligning itself with Israel's arch enemies, Iran and Syria. I wouldn't be surprised if once this latest 'spat' with Hamas calms down, Israel does go about supporting Ukraine more given Russia's stance on the whole thing.

 

[Cdd89]

I see nothing wrong with what he actually said; people like you and Starmer fussing over this while millions of people are suffering is absolutely ridiculous.

I don’t believe he wasn’t aware that the phrase was considered to be antisemitic (even if he disagrees himself), and the question is therefore raised why he would choose to use it, knowing it would undermine his message of peace. To be honest, I think his main motivation was to put Starmer in a difficult position (as he has done in the past), by inviting action for a statement we can all agree is not inherently problematic, but which some would argue is contextually problematic. (I assume we can agree it wasn’t tenable for Starmer to do nothing).

I agree with you that it is serving as a huge distraction from far more important matters; and as such I don’t blame you for wishing not to spend more time discussing what is ultimately semantics. However, I would blame McDonald for creating this distraction (in order to benefit himself in some way), and as such I’m not inclined to defend him.

Finally, I feel this should almost go without saying, but I absolutely do not support Israel’s response and it’s a shame it hasn’t been learned that responding to terorrist attacks in this way only makes things worse. I do have a bit of sympathy with the argument above that a tough reaction was politically expedient.

 

[Bluejays]

Is it a key ally? What has Israel done recently to support the UK that might merit that description? Off the top of my head the main thing that comes to mind regarding Israel's recent foreign policy is their point blank refusal to provide any military support to Ukraine because Israel wants to keep on good terms with Putin's terrorist regime - and that definitely doesn't look like supporting the UK or the UK's interests in any way!

I don't think it was necessarily about being on 'good terms' with Russia for the sake of it. It was about the fundamental need for them to be able to have a working relationship with Russia. If the Israelis weren't able to have some kind of relationship with Russia they'd have had the irgc right on their border. I'd be surprised if any leaders had a major issue with Israel's stance, because they would have understood the reasoning. Also important to point out that Israel provide a lot of humanitarian relief to Ukraine. They also provided anti drone equipment and agreed to the US stockpiles of munitions held in Israel being transferred to Ukraine, a decision that didn't go down very well at all with the Russians.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2023 ==

Even this wasn't enough to keep Israel on good terms with Russia; the attempted pogrom at Dagestan airport showing that (even though the authorities acted to stop it, it's still not a good look). This is of course on top of the fact Russia has been aligning itself with Israel's arch enemies, Iran and Syria. I wouldn't be surprised if once this latest 'spat' with Hamas calms down, Israel does go about supporting Ukraine more given Russia's stance on the whole thing.

Israel can't afford to antagonize the Russians. Unfortunately, the facts remain that they are a small country in a hostile area. With the Iranians being so involved in Syria, Israel need as much of a relationship as they can with the Russians(who control the skies in Syria). In much the same way as zelensky condemned the Hamas attack, but then asked the US not to forget Ukraine while arming israel. Ukraine and Israel are both in a position where they have to look after their own interests first, and quite rightfully so.

 

[rapmastaj]

This is getting so horrendous, it feels like another Nakba is in progress. Extreme rightwingers in Israel have outright called for this, and the widespread destruction of Gaza is well on the way to making it a reality. Along with the handing out of thousands of weapons to (already armed) West Bank settlers who are using the opportunity to go on their own little killing sprees.

As for the spat about Andy McDonald, I have huge respect for the man. When I worked for the charity Transport for New Homes, researching and campaigning for better approaches to housebuilding that avoid locking in car dependency, I met him in person when he was Shadow Transport Secretary. He was very receptive to us and seemed like a genuinely thoughtful and decent guy, one of the very best Labour MPs.

The phrase he used may have been labelled anti-Semitic, but in Israel itself, it's not seen so simply. Look at this blog in The Times of Israel about an (I think potentially quite inspiring) Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative. They use the same phrase, and nobody is calling them anti-Semitic.

The Blogs: A land for all? A glimpse into a shared future

From the blog of Moritz Haegi at The Times of Israel

blogs.timesofisrael.com

A Land for All proposes an Israeli-Palestinian confederation and works towards building an alternative reality to the seemingly forlorn cycle of mistrust, hate and violence between the river and the sea

 

[Bluejays]

This is getting so horrendous, it feels like another Nakba is in progress. Extreme rightwingers in Israel have outright called for this, and the widespread destruction of Gaza is well on the way to making it a reality. Along with the handing out of thousands of weapons to (already armed) West Bank settlers who are using the opportunity to go on their own little killing sprees.

As for the spat about Andy McDonald, I have huge respect for the man. When I worked for the charity Transport for New Homes, researching and campaigning for better approaches to housebuilding that avoid locking in car dependency, I met him in person when he was Shadow Transport Secretary. He was very receptive to us and seemed like a genuinely thoughtful and decent guy, one of the very best Labour MPs.

The phrase he used may have been labelled anti-Semitic, but in Israel itself, it's not seen so simply. Look at this blog in The Times of Israel about an (I think potentially quite inspiring) Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative. They use the same phrase, and nobody is calling them anti-Semitic.

The Blogs: A land for all? A glimpse into a shared future

From the blog of Moritz Haegi at The Times of Israel

blogs.timesofisrael.com

Agree with you about McDonald, and 100% right about the weapons to settlers. I think that was a gift to Ben gvir to stop him kicking off about the fact he was being well and truly isolated for from the war cabinet. Personally I think the settlement enterprise is going to come under massive pressure after the conflict has finished. Biden will want something in return for the support he has given Israel, and I think/hope the settlers have quite rightly got a hard time coming over the next year or 2. While I think giving the guns to the settlers is an awful idea, it does need to be pointed out that for many/most of them who are getting guns, it's self defence against another incursion that will be at the forefront of their minds. The aggressive settlers who harass/kill innocent Palestinian families are to my mind no different to Hamas. They are a stain on humanity and a stain on the state of Israel. They should be given the option of obeying the law, a bullet or a lifetime in prison and I sincerely hope that them and their leaders are made to make those choices or suffer those consequences very soon.

As for 'a second nakba', I think that's a poor arguement. This war/invasion is in response to the events of October 7th, you won't find me excusing everything the Israelis are doing in Gaza, but this current war is not occuring because the Israelis woke up on 8th october and decided they were going to have a go at expelling Palestinians. It's happening because Israelis woke on the 7th october to their country being invaded.

 

[rapmastaj]

As for 'a second nakba', I think that's a poor arguement.

I hope you're right, it's just that that's the way it feels like things could be heading, with the Gaza strip being so extensively destroyed and the Egyptian border beginning to open.

Of course something had to be done in response to the brutal Hamas attack. But the crisis is also very much of Netanyahu's making. Back in 2019 he supported the growth of Hamas as a means of dividing the Palestinian leadership and restricting the power of the Palestinian Authority.

 

[Bluejays]

I hope you're right, it's just that that's the way it feels like things could be heading, with the Gaza strip being so extensively destroyed and the Egyptian border beginning to open.

Of course something had to be done in response to the brutal Hamas attack. But the crisis is also very much of Netanyahu's making. Back in 2019 he supported the growth of Hamas as a means of dividing the Palestinian leadership and restricting the power of the Palestinian Authority.

Very true. I think I mentioned a few posts ago that in my opinion Netanyahu is a dead man walking (politically) because his divide to conquer strategy has failed.

On the subject of the Egypt/gaza border opening. An absolutely shocking quote was made by the Egyptian pm a few days ago, that I'm surprised hasn't been met with more anger by commentators/leaders. He said something along the lines of ' would rather see millions dead than Egypt's territory be compromised '.

 

[DustyBin]

Very true. I think I mentioned a few posts ago that in my opinion Netanyahu is a dead man walking (politically) because his divide to conquer strategy has failed.

I was one of the people who said the same, and recent articles I've seen in the Israeli media strongly support this.

On the subject of the Egypt/gaza border opening. An absolutely shocking quote was made by the Egyptian pm a few days ago, that I'm surprised hasn't been met with more anger by commentators/leaders. He said something along the lines of ' would rather see millions dead than Egypt's territory be compromised '.

I hadn't seen that, but it is indeed a shocking quote. It highlights the problem though of differentiating between innocent Palestinians and Hamas (presuming of course it's the latter he's actually concerned about). Regardless of that though, it's awful rhetoric.

 

[rapmastaj]

Very true. I think I mentioned a few posts ago that in my opinion Netanyahu is a dead man walking (politically) because his divide to conquer strategy has failed.

On the subject of the Egypt/gaza border opening. An absolutely shocking quote was made by the Egyptian pm a few days ago, that I'm surprised hasn't been met with more anger by commentators/leaders. He said something along the lines of ' would rather see millions dead than Egypt's territory be compromised '.

Shocking indeed.

 

[nw1]

Is it a key ally? What has Israel done recently to support the UK that might merit that description? Off the top of my head the main thing that comes to mind regarding Israel's recent foreign policy is their point blank refusal to provide any military support to Ukraine because Israel wants to keep on good terms with Putin's terrorist regime - and that definitely doesn't look like supporting the UK or the UK's interests in any way!

I genuinely never knew that, I didn't realise Netanyahu was trying to curry favour with Putin. That, of course, makes him look even worse.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2023 ==

Of course something had to be done in response to the brutal Hamas attack. But the crisis is also very much of Netanyahu's making. Back in 2019 he supported the growth of Hamas as a means of dividing the Palestinian leadership and restricting the power of the Palestinian Authority.

Really? Then he is an absolute hypocrite and needs to stop his moralising right now. And of course he certainly needs to stop acting like a petulant child in banning the UN leadership from entering Israel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2023 ==

It's untenable to pick a side and go "all in" when both sides are at times as bad as each other. I wouldn't say I support Israel's actions, in fact I'd very much like them to stop what they're doing. How do you then deal with Hamas though? Or do you think Hamas and Israel can coexist?

These are my own opinions and not necessarily those of @yorkie's, but I actually don't have the answer to that.

However, I do believe there are limits on what action should be taken to try and deal with the problem of Hamas, and killing 8,000-odd innocent Palestinian civilians in an attempt to deal with Hamas is beyond the bounds of acceptability.

And besides which, the current action will only breed more and more terrorist groups. I suspect that after this action, Israel will be more, rather than less, vulnerable to terrorism. A spectacularly stupid decision by Netanyahu on so many levels.

 

[ainsworth74]

On the "river to the sea" business I thought it was interesting that whilst now it appears, in certain contexts, to be used as shorthand for establishing a Palestinian state at the expense of Israel that Likud (the main ruling party in Israel and Netanyahu's party) original party platform back in the 1970s contained the following phrase front and centre:

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)​

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.​

Original Party Platform of the Likud Party

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

I don't know if that still forms part of their party platform officially but their behaviour (and certainly the behaviour of their coalition allies) suggests that they certainly still think in those terms...

Really? Then he is an absolute hypocrite and needs to stop his moralising right now. And of course he certainly needs to stop acting like a petulant child in banning the UN leadership from entering Israel.

Oh yeah. Netanyahu and the Likud party appear to have formed the opinion that they can use Hamas to fix in aspic the conflict between Israel and Palestine by ensuring that it is almost impossible for a coherent political movement to form within the Palestinian territories and within Gaza in particular. They could then use their technology and resources to wall off Gaza and contain Hamas there whilst providing tacit approval to the more extreme elements of Israeli society who have been slowly encroaching on Palestinian territory and settlements in the West Bank slowly but steadily carving that territory into swiss cheese.

By keeping the Palestinian's politically divided by supporting Hamas as the Palestinian Authority is dominated by Fatah which do not get on with Hamas meaning the two main territories are politically divided, munching away at their territory in the West Bank making it harder and harder for West Bank to operate as a cohesive Palestinian territory, all the while keeping the extremists in Gaza bottled up Netanyahu and Likud clearly thought that they had a solution which worked for them. Good for Israel, good for Likud obviously catastrophic for the Palestinians.

Obviously that was amoral in the extreme and has now resulted in the deaths of 1,400 Israeli's and then the IDF's revenge strikes on Gaza have gone onto to kill thousands of Palestinians. History will not be kind to Netanyahu and his political party.

 

[DustyBin]

I genuinely never knew that, I didn't realise Netanyahu was trying to curry favour with Putin. That, of course, makes him look even worse.

Israel and Russia have a complex relationship, and there are practical reasons why Netanyahu may have wanted to remain "neutral". I don't think it's a case of trying to curry favour per se, it's more a case of not wanting to compromise Israel's security. As repugnant as the Netanyahu regime is, I suspect that the realpolitik would lead to the same outcome whoever was in charge.

Really? Then he is an absolute hypocrite and needs to stop his moralising right now. And of course he certainly needs to stop acting like a petulant child in banning the UN leadership from entering Israel.

@ainsworth74 has explained it well, but yes, basically Netanyahu's divide and conquer strategy has blown up in his face.

These are my own opinions and not necessarily those of @yorkie's, but I actually don't have the answer to that.

I can't see how Hamas can be removed other than by force, and I don't see how the two can coexist when their entire raison d' etre is war with, and the eventual destruction of Israel. That then leads us to the current mess....

However, I do believe there are limits on what action should be taken to try and deal with the problem of Hamas, and killing 8,000-odd innocent Palestinian civilians in an attempt to deal with Hamas is beyond the bounds of acceptability.

This is the grey area. Should there be no civilian casualties? Is it just about the numbers? Is it about civilian causalities vs achieved military objectives, as per the Geneva Convention and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)?

Beyond stating that I'd like to see no civilian causalities, which is hopelessly idealistic, I honestly don't know where the line should be drawn. Israel will no doubt argue that it hasn't breached IHL. Others will disagree and it will come down to interpretation, so I'm not even sure it can be relied upon as a "guide" in this instance.

And besides which, the current action will only breed more and more terrorist groups. I suspect that after this action, Israel will be more, rather than less, vulnerable to terrorism. A spectacularly stupid decision by Netanyahu on so many levels.

For what it's worth, I think enough is enough at this point due to firstly the suffering being caused, and secondly the likelihood that the seeds are being sown for years if not decades of further violence. The counter argument (that I've read) is that had Israel not responded with extreme force, every terrorist group in the region (of which there are many) would have had a pop. Notably, Hezbollah are limiting their actions to shootouts at the border, apparently as they don't want an all out war with the IDF. Obviously things could change, and non of this helps the Palestinians trapped in Gaza, but they're not Israel's immediate concern (clearly), as matter-of-fact as that sounds.

 

[GS250]

Shocking indeed.

It's all well and good us judging Egypt from the safety of our Western bubble. They have plenty of internal problems too.

However, like many Arab Nations, their embracement of the 'Islamic Brotherhood' is very conditional.

 

[rapmastaj]

It's all well and good us judging Egypt from the safety of our Western bubble. They have plenty of internal problems too.

However, like many Arab Nations, their embracement of the 'Islamic Brotherhood' is very conditional.

To be fair, there aren't many good options for Egypt. Encouraging Palestinians to cross the border could help to enable a situation where we end up with a permanent refugee population in the Sinai, as some in Israel may well be hoping for. It's easy to see why the Egyptian government would want to avoid this, and many Palestinians wouldn't want it to happen either.

 

[kristiang85]

Apparently Hezbollah are making a big announcement tomorrow. Some speculating a declaration of war (which would be suicide for them IMO), but I predict it will be a lot of hot hair and sabre rattling.

 

[DustyBin]

It's all well and good us judging Egypt from the safety of our Western bubble. They have plenty of internal problems too.

However, like many Arab Nations, their embracement of the 'Islamic Brotherhood' is very conditional.

They do indeed have their fair share of problems, including attacks by Hamas. It’s still a pretty shocking choice of words though under the circumstances, even if designed to send a clear message.

To be fair, there aren't many good options for Egypt. Encouraging Palestinians to cross the border could help to enable a situation where we end up with a permanent refugee population in the Sinai, as some in Israel may well be hoping for. It's easy to see why the Egyptian government would want to avoid this, and many Palestinians wouldn't want it to happen either.

This is a good point. With the population of Gaza being forced south, it’s easy to see why the Egyptians are concerned.

 

[Bluejays]

I see Nasrallah is expected to emerge from his cave and make a statement today. Hope he chooses his words carefully, because the wrong words could be devastating for the parts of Lebanon him and his supporters say they love so much.

Most of the analysts seem to think he's not going to declare war. But with the fuss and buildup to the speech that's been created by Hezbollah I'd imagine something that they think is important is going to be said.


Edit: just saw that kristiang has already posted on the same matter

 

[Mogster]

I found this article about the Hamas Gaza underground system interesting. There’s also a link to a Twitter video of a journalist entering part of the system. This isn’t the sort of infrastructure you create quickly or cheaply.

What Israel can expect in the Gaza tunnel system

What the Israel Defence Forces can expect when they enter the ‘Gaza Metro’ tunnel system.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

What the Israel Defence Forces can expect when they enter the ‘Gaza Metro’ tunnel system.​

Amid fears of yet another long war in the region, Israel has now begun its ground campaign in Gaza.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has already claimed several successes in its three-week campaign, including the elimination of several terrorist leaders including Ibrahim Biari, who it described as a “ringleader” of the October 7 attacks, and liberating at least one hostage held by Hamas.

But Israel’s military commanders will know that this is unlikely to be a simple operation. Among the factors complicating their mission of eliminating Hamas is the “Gaza Metro”, a vast network of interconnected tunnels within the region. Having invested heavily in subterranean infrastructure over the years, Hamas is counting on this network to aid its survival in the coming weeks.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

I like the YT video of Ben Shapiro schooling the apologists for murder.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Nov 2023 ==

According to Oleg Gordievsky, who claimed he had seen such information when he was working for the KGB in London. The Sunday Times serialised Gordievsky's autobiography in 1995, and Foot later sued them for libel and won substantial damages. Long prior to that stories had been planted in the press imputing that Harold Wilson, Labour P,M, in the late 1960s and mid 1970s, was a Soviet spy. This 'information' came from a Russian defector, just like Gordievsky. A case of telling MI5.MI6/the CIA what they wanted to hear?

Ben Mcintyre pretty much confirmed that the original report was correct.

 

[hst43102]

I like the YT video of Ben Shapiro schooling the apologists for murder.

"Schooling"? That man is a far-right Trump apologist, which means that I shall be taking anything he says with a big pinch of salt.

To be fair, there aren't many good options for Egypt. Encouraging Palestinians to cross the border could help to enable a situation where we end up with a permanent refugee population in the Sinai, as some in Israel may well be hoping for. It's easy to see why the Egyptian government would want to avoid this, and many Palestinians wouldn't want it to happen either.

Egypt has already had problems with terrorism in the Sinai, I think that they are anxious to avoid more problems spilling over from Gaza. That doesn't excuse the awful rhetoric from their PM though, absolutely un-neccesary to completely disregard the fate of two million civilians like that.

 

[nw1]

I note that Sunak wants to stop pro-Palestinian protests on Armistice Day.

Bit ironic on the day in which people remember the victims of war. Who are the dead Palestinians in Gaza if they are not victims of war?

See: https://www.itv.com/news/2023-11-03/will-police-stop-pro-palestinian-protests-on-remembrance-day;

Writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, he said: “To plan protests on Armistice Day is provocative and disrespectful...

No, it isn't. Protests for peace and protests against the killing of innocent civilians are absolutely in harmony with what Armistice Day should be all about, a day to remember the horrors of war and the victims of war.

Far worse than holding the protests on that day is Sunak's attempt to emotionally blackmail people into not protesting, in an apparent attempt to silence them. Make no mistake, Sunak is unambiguously turning into a right-wing authoritarian. Even more ironically he goes on about "freedoms" in his post on Twitter. What about the "freedoms" for people to protest?