2023 Israel - Hamas / Hezbollah war

[Sunil_P]

Again, this is an argument that simply wouldn’t fly if it was some British children and British innocents that got caught up and killed in an attack like this. If the IRA had bombed a soldier while he was standing in the supermarket and killed a child too in the process it would have been rightly regarded as repellent, as well as uninterested in civilian carnage. It would also have been rightly regarded as terrorism.

They killed two kids in Warrington, 1993.

 

[AlterEgo]

They killed two kids in Warrington, 1993.

The IRA killed over 100 children as collateral in their campaign. One thing they didn’t get was British people grossly effusing at how innovative their methods were. Going “wow how interesting - a tilt shift bomb”. How they’d only managed to murder two kids this time and that was a moral choice because, “well, they could have made a bigger bomb you see and the Troubles are so messy, that’s the nature of it you see”. They also didn’t have a client media who led stories like Channel 4 did by quipping “Israel calling?” or similar little jokes.

I find people who excuse or praise Israel - who as a sovereign state should be held to a much higher standard than a private terror group - at best morally misguided. That is the politest way I can make that point.

 

[GusB]

Surely that was the whole point of using exploding pagers issued to Hezbollah to avoid/minimize civilian casualties?

The whole point is that Israel does not know (nor does it care) where each individual carrying these devices is at any given time and that those individuals may be in a situation where such an explosion may affect innocent people. There was video footage of one of those pagers going off in a supermarket; are you able to confirm that all the people affected were involved with Hezbollah?

Since most countries define Hezbollah as terrorists and not non-combatants, I am not sure you are correct on this one.

Hezbollah isn't in charge in Lebanon - a fact that you've so far failed to grasp. Ordinary Lebanese people are not combatants; how do you distinguish one from the other? (Hint: you can't)

I find people who excuse or praise Israel - who as a sovereign state should be held to a much higher standard than a private terror group - at best morally misguided. That is the politest way I can make that point.

We should call a spade a spade. Terrorism is terrorism whether it's carried out by state actors or non-state actors and what has happened in Lebanon over the last few days is terrorism. The people who orchestrated these attacks are terrorists and should be brought to justice for their actions. I don't really worry about being polite when making that point.

 

[Cloud Strife]

What actually needs to happen is for the US to specify - and enforce - FAR more stringent restrictions on its direct funding of Israel based on Israel’s behaviour and willingness to discuss and progress the two-state solution, including compromises on territorial claims and Palestinian citizenship rights etc.

I think a three state, not two state solution is a better answer here. The most sensible path right now would be to constitute Gaza as an international free city under Arab supervision with UN authority. They would have a mandate to ensure the safety of Israel as well as Gaza, and also take responsibility for policing and security.

Then you can constitute the West Bank as the State of Palestine, subject to some territorial revisions where it makes sense, such as East Jerusalem being incorporated into Israel. In this case, it would be made clear that any attacks on Israel will be treated as an act of war, and Israel would retain the right to defend itself in the event of any attacks.

However, the settler lobby in the West Bank is incredibly, incredibly powerful. Removing them would be easier said than done, especially as those settlements are armed to the teeth.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, the location does not matter too much.

The world- quite rightly- was outraged when Russians slipped some polonium in Alexander Litvinenko's cup of tea, and were again outraged when Russia started rubbing Novichok on people's door handles in Salisbury.

Yet what the Russians did was far more targeted and far less likely to injure civilians than what Israel have just done.

The hypocrisy of the West is staggering, but entirely unsurprising.

The IRA killed over 100 children as collateral in their campaign. One thing they didn’t get was British people grossly effusing at how innovative their methods were.

The British were certainly a lot less vocal in their disgust- to the point of near-silence- about the no-warning Dublin/Monaghan bombings in May 1974 which killed 34 people and an unborn child.

 

[Bluejays]

Sounds like it was mostly luck. Reminds me of when the IRA would plant bombs in public places, but phone in a coded bomb warning so they could state they weren't attempting to kill any civilians. Unfortunately that didn't always turn out well.

Think it's important to remember that the amount of explosive used in each device was very different to that of the bombs mentioned. The injuries described of groin/abdomen or fingertips and eyes suggest that the charge caused serious damage to those who had the pagers but that the damage was pretty localised. The fact that the damage was evidently localised on the target would suggest that the prospect of physical harm to passers by was probably on the low side.

While assumptions can of course be wrong. I think it would have been a pretty reasonable assumption made during planning that Hezbollah's own operational security would have had pretty strict rules about communication equipment not being allowed to fall into the hands of others.

The story of the 9yr old girl who was killed by one of the pager explosions is utterly tragic. I'd imagine whoever that pager belonged to will have undergone some pretty serious questioning by now, about who else he has let have access to it.

 

[jon0844]

The story of the 9yr old girl who was killed by one of the pager explosions is utterly tragic. I'd imagine whoever that pager belonged to will have undergone some pretty serious questioning by now, about who else he has let have access to it.

Why? What reason would anyone have to think a pager or walkie talkie is going to kill someone?

A pager isn't always going to be worn. A walkie talkie will often be put on a desk to charge or just left there because someone is at a desk. There's no way you could be sure where these items would be when sending the 'kill signal' as it would appear was sent to trigger all the devices at once.

 

[ainsworth74]

Again, this is an argument that simply wouldn’t fly if it was some British children and British innocents that got caught up and killed in an attack like this. If the IRA had bombed a soldier while he was standing in the supermarket and killed a child too in the process it would have been rightly regarded as repellent, as well as uninterested in civilian carnage. It would also have been rightly regarded as terrorism.

I think it must be some element of "boiling frogs" for some people.

We've become so used to Israel taking a very lax approach to preventing civilian casualties ("There's a Hamas communications node in the basement of that apartment block, we'll make a few phone calls and send some SMS messages telling people to leave immediately but if they don't all get out tough, that apartment block is coming down") that when they do carry out a strike which has only killed two children it seems like a success.

Never mind that it still killed two children and could have killed and injured dozens more children and other civilians who have no connection to Hezbollah.

 

[Ediswan]

I think it must be some element of "boiling frogs" for some people.

We've become so used to Israel taking a very lax approach to preventing civilian casualties ("There's a Hamas communications node in the basement of that apartment block, we'll make a few phone calls and send some SMS messages telling people to leave immediately but if they don't all get out tough, that apartment block is coming down") that when they do carry out a strike which has only killed two children it seems like a success.

Never mind that it still killed two children and could have killed and injured dozens more children and other civilians who have no connection to Hezbollah.

Consistent with the boiled frog analogy, the criteria for justifying a strike in Gaza seems to have changed over time. Initially it was "A Hamas HQ", then "A Hamas commander", more recently "Hamas fighters".

 

[ainsworth74]

Consistent with the boiled frog analogy, the criteria for justifying a strike in Gaza seems to have changed over time. Initially it was "A Hamas HQ", then "A Hamas commander", more recently "Hamas fighters".

Yes definitely that would be another aspect to it.

 

[Trackman]

My friend from Israel messaged me today, said everyone is fed up with it all. Seems the hostages are a focal point.

 

[DustyBin]

Right so, because this was just appalling and resulted in the deaths of innocent children, and not in fact much worse, like an act of genocide, we are supposed to think this is okay?

It's not "okay" by any stretch, the deaths of innocent people should never be simply shrugged off. It would be far better if Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other nutjobs came out into the open and went toe to toe with the IDF, but they won't which makes this kind of collateral damage inevitable (unless Israel doesn't fight back of course, which I know you believe they have no right to).

I rather suspect anyone using a pager to receive updates from militants might check it in, but if it makes you feel better that it couldn't happen in Britain and it only killed innocent Lebanese people alongside some militants that's up to you.

I think you've misconstrued what I said, possibly deliberately....

No, you are dodging the fact you're excusing the act in Lebanon - and in fact justifying it and providing moral relevance to it - when you would not if it happened here. Were you outraged by the Russian radiation incident in Salisbury? If not, you should have been, for its reckless nature in that civilians got harmed and could have been killed. Britain is conducting conflicts against multiple actors and states, and if any of them were to try to retaliate by blowing up key individuals in public spaces in Britain, ending up killing British children as collateral, you'd be outraged. You probably feel sickened at things like the Warrington bomb, where the IRA waged its war on Britain with little regard for the people it would kill, regardless of how "clean" their aims might have been. You know you would be disgusted by it, and you want to avoid feeling unclean about your comfort that it was just Lebanese children killed by hoping to avoid the comparison.

I'm not excusing anything, I'm simply not going "all in" for or against one side or the other. In fact, I can't think of a current conflict where taking sides would be more misguided and inappropriate.

I'm genuinely failing to see where you're coming from with your comparisons. However, if tens of thousands of UK-based terrorists were committing atrocities against another country whilst mingling with innocent people, and as a result were taken out along with a few innocent bystanders, the majority of my outrage would be directed at the terrorists. Apparently the majority of Lebanese civilians are similarly minded....

That's because that side is being aided and abetted in its genocide by our government and you are expected by our media and the state to think it's okay for Israel to do that, and in fact will go so far as to provide moral equivocation for their war aims. A more principled stand is to call out both aggressors but concentrate on maintaining pressure on our own responsibilities in bringing the genocide to an end.

I may not occupy the Mount Everest of moral high grounds like yourself, but where's the moral equivocation in what I've said?

For the avoidance of doubt, the attack on Hezbollah is an unwelcome and dangerous development. Netanyahu is a war criminal. All illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be removed. Israel should withdraw it's forces from Gaza, to be replaced by an international peacekeeping force. Palestinians should have their own viable state. Hamas (what remains) and Hezbollah need to cease to exist one way or the other. I could go on....

I suspect you actually agree with the above? Where we fundamentally disagree is over Israel's right to exist, as you hold what can only be described as an extreme view.

Hezbollah are not amateurs, I’m sure they scanned the equipment before they used it.

I bet dollars to donuts that if you carried one of these booby-trapped pagers through commercial airport security it wouldn’t get detected.

More details are emerging which suggest you may well be correct, in which case fair enough.

The same people cheering this atrocity are the same people who were outraged when the IRA bombed the Conservative Party conference.

I'm certainly not cheering it, however again I'm struggling with the comparison. Terrorists blowing up civilians is not the same as a country's military blowing up terrorists. The false equivalence is obvious, surely?

I find this post rather disturbing; do you really want to (be seen to) condone this terrorist attack, by an aggressive occupying state? If so, I find it disappointing.

Again, I'm not condoning it. How though should Israel deal with utterly barbaric terrorists who are committed to it's destruction? The problem I have is that I can't think of a palatable solution, certainly not whilst the terrorists embed themselves within, and often literally hide behind the civilian population.

The situation in Gaza at this point is different in my opinion, and Israel's campaign has lost any legitimacy it may have had.

I find people who excuse or praise Israel - who as a sovereign state should be held to a much higher standard than a private terror group - at best morally misguided. That is the politest way I can make that point.

I agree with you here. The issue is that due to the way Hamas and Hezbollah operate, the Israelis would be completely hamstrung were they to abide by this standard at all times. That's not to say they should be given carte blanche to do whatever they like of course.

 

[yorkie]

Again, I'm not condoning it. How though should Israel deal with utterly barbaric terrorists who are committed to it's destruction?

What do you mean by the "destruction" of Israel and do you think it is likely to happen?

Do you accept that Israel illegally occupies lands to which they have no right to occupy?

Do you agree that an actual state should be held to a higher standard than a terrorist group?

The problem I have is that I can't think of a palatable solution, certainly not whilst the terrorists embed themselves within, and often literally hide behind the civilian population.

Don't you think that, while Israel continue to oppress people, illegally occupy lands and carry out barbaric acts, there will always be those who resist?

If our country was illegally occupied, do you think the entire population would just accept it? Do you not think some people would resort to extreme acts to end the illegal occupation of our lands?

Or is it different because it's not happening to us?

 

[AlterEgo]

It would be far better if Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other nutjobs came out into the open and went toe to toe with the IDF

It would not, actually. It would be appalling.

, but they won't which makes this kind of collateral damage inevitable (unless Israel doesn't fight back of course, which I know you believe they have no right to).

I don't think they have no right to fight back and have not said or implied this. What I have said is that Israel has no divine right to exist, the same as any other state, and especially so given it's a racist ethnostate practising apartheid. South Africa and Rhodesia had no right to exist, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a right - or expectation - to retaliate when attacked. It just so happens that it was right in both cases that those states changed into something else.

I'm not excusing anything, I'm simply not going "all in" for or against one side or the other. In fact, I can't think of a current conflict where taking sides would be more misguided and inappropriate.

Israel's genocide of Palestinians has a very clear place on which a decent person should land. It is not nearly as morally complex as people pretend it is.

I'm genuinely failing to see where you're coming from with your comparisons. However, if tens of thousands of UK-based terrorists were committing atrocities against another country whilst mingling with innocent people, and as a result were taken out along with a few innocent bystanders, the majority of my outrage would be directed at the terrorists.

So, to be clear, you would be more outraged at the members of the IRA than the British Army, regarding an event like Bloody Sunday? Where the army and state committed an atrocity and was wantonly reckless from the outset - at minimum - at the prospect of the murder of innocent civilians. Like, if that happened, in 1972 - your focus would be on how the terrorists really were the ones at fault for that particular atrocity, for sort of creating the playing field, in your view? That uses the same warped logic as the IRA's vile statement after Warrington, after they bombed two children, where the blame in their view was focused on the British state's ongoing participation in the Troubles.

I may not occupy the Mount Everest of moral high grounds like yourself, but where's the moral equivocation in what I've said?

The moral equivocation is that you have said you are less concerned about the murder of innocent people as collateral damage, yet also posit yourself as being concerned for everyone, by both-sidesing the argument. There is a very clear imbalance of power between a Western-backed colonial force which has ethnically cleansed Palestinians and Arabs, and which has to - by its own nature - use violence to exist and support itself, and which is engaging in genocide...and organised terror groups.

For the avoidance of doubt, the attack on Hezbollah is an unwelcome and dangerous development. Netanyahu is a war criminal. All illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be removed. Israel should withdraw it's forces from Gaza, to be replaced by an international peacekeeping force. Palestinians should have their own viable state. Hamas (what remains) and Hezbollah need to cease to exist one way or the other. I could go on....

I suspect you actually agree with the above? Where we fundamentally disagree is over Israel's right to exist, as you hold what can only be described as an extreme view.

That is not an extreme view. States do not have a divine right to exist; this is a fool's platitude. If Israel did have that right, there would be no conflict. Israel exists because it uses force. It was founded using terrorism and has consistently used it internationally to justify its existence. Israel does not have a right to be there. Neither, in fact, does Palestine.

Rhodesia, apartheid South Africa, Kurdistan, the United Kingdom...none of those states have a right to exist in any meaningful sense of the word. People talk about a "right to exist" as a way of explaining away Israel's extreme propensity for violence and state-sponsored terrorism.

I'm certainly not cheering it, however again I'm struggling with the comparison. Terrorists blowing up civilians is not the same as a country's military blowing up terrorists. The false equivalence is obvious, surely?

Indeed they are not equivalent - one is worse than the other. Which one do you think is worse?

Again, I'm not condoning it. How though should Israel deal with utterly barbaric terrorists who are committed to it's destruction? The problem I have is that I can't think of a palatable solution, certainly not whilst the terrorists embed themselves within, and often literally hide behind the civilian population.

You see, that was what the IRA used to do - embed themselves into the civilian population - yet almost no British person would have found it acceptable for the state to blow up hundreds of IRA volunteers while also maiming and killing innocent Irish and British children. Notably, we as a country do not use the same standard when we think about countries in the Middle East. There is a reason for this.

I agree with you here. The issue is that due to the way Hamas and Hezbollah operate, the Israelis would be completely hamstrung were they to abide by this standard at all times. That's not to say they should be given carte blanche to do whatever they like of course.

So what does this mean in practice, to you? You could have said this sort of hand-wringing thing about the IRA. "Well the state is hamstring because of the way they operate". Yes, the state is. And so what indeed? What would you do differently?

 

[Bluejays]

Why? What reason would anyone have to think a pager or walkie talkie is going to kill someone?

A pager isn't always going to be worn. A walkie talkie will often be put on a desk to charge or just left there because someone is at a desk. There's no way you could be sure where these items would be when sending the 'kill signal' as it would appear was sent to trigger all the devices at once.

So you think Hezbollah's top command would be happy with the fact that their communications devices are left out unattended for anyone to potentially have a peek at?


I'd suggest you read the post again

 

[yorkie]

So you think Hezbollah's top command would be happy with the fact that their communications devices are left out unattended for anyone to potentially have a peek at?


I'd suggest you read the post again

Let's be clear; are you trying to somehow justify, condone or downplay the seriousness of the actions of the far-right Israeli regime?

 

[Bluejays]

Let's be clear; are you trying to somehow justify, condone or downplay the seriousness of the actions of the far-right Israeli regime?

Same advice again. I'd read my post if I were you. I added some context that I felt was needed to the discussion. If you disagree with the content of that post then surely replying to that post with a counter argument would be the best way of having a decent discussion.


* In the post you have chosen to reply to. I was correcting a clear misunderstanding of my use of the phrase operational security and how it applies to Hezbollah communication systems. I of course was talking about the fact that Hezbollah, like all groups involved in combat could reasonably be assumed to demand that all communications equipment is kept protected and that all communications are protected from the possibility of being viewed by anyone other than the intended recipients.

Jon seemed to have got the idea that I was suggesting that Hezbollah should have known there was a physical danger from the pagers

 

[DustyBin]

What do you mean by the "destruction" of Israel and do you think it is likely to happen?

You really need to ask the terrorist loons who rant and rave about it!

Do you accept that Israel illegally occupies lands to which they have no right to occupy?

Yes, that’s obviously part of the problem.

Do you agree that an actual state should be held to a higher standard than a terrorist group?

Yes, see my previous response to @AlterEgo.

Don't you think that, while Israel continue to oppress people, illegally occupy lands and carry out barbaric acts, there will always be those who resist?

Yes, however I don’t deem the mass rape and murder of civilians as resistance.

If our country was illegally occupied, do you think the entire population would just accept it? Do you not think some people would resort to extreme acts to end the illegal occupation of our lands?

Or is it different because it's not happening to us?

See above; if that’s the kind of “resistance” you mean, we’d be no better than the occupiers.

Presumably you’ve seen my numerous posts in the Ukraine thread, so I think you know full well that “because it’s not happening to us” has nothing to do with it. You’re also ignoring the fact that I’ve made my thoughts on Netanyahu, and a two state solution, quite clear.

It would not, actually. It would be appalling.

It would save civilian lives though surely? You’ve accused me of hand wringing (below) but don’t want a conventional military confrontation as people would get hurt?

Clearly a peaceful solution is preferable, but we’re dealing with nutters (on both sides to an extent) here.

I don't think they have no right to fight back and have not said or implied this. What I have said is that Israel has no divine right to exist, the same as any other state, and especially so given it's a racist ethnostate practising apartheid. South Africa and Rhodesia had no right to exist, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a right - or expectation - to retaliate when attacked. It just so happens that it was right in both cases that those states changed into something else.

Statements such as the below heavily imply a desire to see Israel cease to exist:

I wish for Israel to be dismantled peacefully, although this possibility seems remote now.

Apologies if I’ve misunderstood…

I agree with you when it comes to Israel’s “divine right” however. I’ve visited numerous Jewish museums and I’ve always left feeling uneasy with this particular aspect.

Israel's genocide of Palestinians has a very clear place on which a decent person should land. It is not nearly as morally complex as people pretend it is.

I agree; it’s actually quite easy to condemn Israel’s genocidal actions. We (or certainly I) can’t ignore the barbaric actions of the terrorist groups and their contribution to the situation, however.

So, to be clear, you would be more outraged at the members of the IRA than the British Army, regarding an event like Bloody Sunday? Where the army and state committed an atrocity and was wantonly reckless from the outset - at minimum - at the prospect of the murder of innocent civilians. Like, if that happened, in 1972 - your focus would be on how the terrorists really were the ones at fault for that particular atrocity, for sort of creating the playing field, in your view? That uses the same warped logic as the IRA's vile statement after Warrington, after they bombed two children, where the blame in their view was focused on the British state's ongoing participation in the Troubles.

You’re again using a non-analogous comparison.

The moral equivocation is that you have said you are less concerned about the murder of innocent people as collateral damage, yet also posit yourself as being concerned for everyone, by both-sidesing the argument. There is a very clear imbalance of power between a Western-backed colonial force which has ethnically cleansed Palestinians and Arabs, and which has to - by its own nature - use violence to exist and support itself, and which is engaging in genocide...and organised terror groups.

I’m not bothsidesing at all, not in the sense you’re implying. I don’t however share your simplistic view of the conflict.

That is not an extreme view. States do not have a divine right to exist; this is a fool's platitude. If Israel did have that right, there would be no conflict. Israel exists because it uses force. It was founded using terrorism and has consistently used it internationally to justify its existence. Israel does not have a right to be there. Neither, in fact, does Palestine.

See above; as you’ve cleared this up by adding the word “divine” I agree.

Rhodesia, apartheid South Africa, Kurdistan, the United Kingdom...none of those states have a right to exist in any meaningful sense of the word. People talk about a "right to exist" as a way of explaining away Israel's extreme propensity for violence and state-sponsored terrorism.

We’ve discussed this previously, however Israel’s raison d'etre changed post-1945. It evolved from being a Zionist project based on the aforementioned divine right, to a necessity (or certainly a legitimate ambition).

Indeed they are not equivalent - one is worse than the other. Which one do you think is worse?

It really depends. Blowing up terrorists isn’t particularly objectionable in principle however, whereas blowing up civilians certainly is.

You see, that was what the IRA used to do - embed themselves into the civilian population - yet almost no British person would have found it acceptable for the state to blow up hundreds of IRA volunteers while also maiming and killing innocent Irish and British children. Notably, we as a country do not use the same standard when we think about countries in the Middle East. There is a reason for this.

Indeed. You’re actually coming close to acknowledging that the two situations aren’t remotely analogous here!

So what does this mean in practice, to you? You could have said this sort of hand-wringing thing about the IRA. "Well the state is hamstring because of the way they operate". Yes, the state is. And so what indeed? What would you do differently?

Ignoring the IRA (non) analogy, it’s a matter of degree really.

Degrading Hamas’s capability in order to prevent another massacre of Israeli civilians, whilst taking reasonable steps to minimise collateral damage, is a legitimate military objective. Attempting to mop up the dregs of Hamas whilst committing genocidal acts (intentionally or otherwise) is not.

What would I do differently? At this point I’d look for a non-violent solution as we’re well past the legitimate military objective stage.

 

[AlterEgo]

You really need to ask the terrorist loons who rant and rave about it!



Yes, that’s obviously part of the problem.



Yes, see my previous response to @AlterEgo.



Yes, however I don’t deem the mass rape and murder of civilians as resistance.



See above; if that’s the kind of “resistance” you mean, we’d be no better than the occupiers.

Presumably you’ve seen my numerous posts in the Ukraine thread, so I think you know full well that “because it’s not happening to us” has nothing to do with it. You’re also ignoring the fact that I’ve made my thoughts on Netanyahu, and a two state solution, quite clear.



It would save civilian lives though surely? You’ve accused me of hand wringing (below) but don’t want a conventional military confrontation as people would get hurt?

Clearly a peaceful solution is preferable, but we’re dealing with nutters (on both sides to an extent) here.



Statements such as the below heavily imply a desire to see Israel cease to exist:

Indeed, it should not exist. Israel should be dismantled and a new political entity formed. Note that this does not mean I think “all the Jews should leave”, but rather a multi ethnic and tolerant democracy should replace Israel.

I agree with you when it comes to Israel’s “divine right” however. I’ve visited numerous Jewish museums and I’ve always left feeling uneasy with this particular aspect.

Maybe you should visit some Palestinian ones too.

I agree; it’s actually quite easy to condemn Israel’s genocidal actions. We (or certainly I) can’t ignore the barbaric actions of the terrorist groups and their contribution to the situation, however.

Nobody is asking you to ignore it, but the West is supporting, arming and funding only one side. It is incumbent on decent people like us who live in democracies to apply pressure to what is de facto our own side, because that can make a real difference.

You’re again using a non-analogous comparison.

It isn’t non-analogous. You don’t like it because it creates a moral quandary where you know for sure you wouldn’t tolerate this sort of barbarism against Irish or British people, but feel empowered to equivocate and excuse state terror against Lebanese Muslims.

We’ve discussed this previously, however Israel’s raison d'etre changed post-1945. It evolved from being a Zionist project based on the aforementioned divine right, to a necessity (or certainly a legitimate ambition).

It didn’t in reality, but that is how it was packaged and sold to the West. I feel certain that many Israelis must see the rocket attacks rained on them and feel that they are vastly less safe then they are in places like Britain. The issue is not their actual safety but the herronvolk mentality which has led them to create a colonial ethnostate which exists only through using violence and terror. If Jewish people *only* wanted to feel safe, why would they live *there*? Israel does believe in its divine right to exist.

It really depends. Blowing up terrorists isn’t particularly objectionable in principle however, whereas blowing up civilians certainly is.

So it’s worse when a state does it.

Indeed. You’re actually coming close to acknowledging that the two situations aren’t remotely analogous here!

The difference is the race and religion of the people involved, so I don’t think describing them as “not remotely analogous” is especially progressive.

Degrading Hamas’s capability in order to prevent another massacre of Israeli civilians, whilst taking reasonable steps to minimise collateral damage, is a legitimate military objective.

How many children should the state kill? How many would be acceptable to you to achieve this aim? I mean two hasn’t really moved the dial with you here.

What would I do differently? At this point I’d look for a non-violent solution as we’re well past the legitimate military objective stage.

What would the non violent solution be? Are you sure there is one?

 

[brad465]

The situation in Lebanon clearly escalating substantially:

Lebanon strikes are preparation for ground incursion, Israel army chief tells troops

Lt Gen Herzi Halevi says the Israeli military is preparing for a "manoeuvre", after a week of escalating cross-border fighting.

www.bbc.co.uk

Death toll from Israeli strikes rises to 356, says Lebanon
​

Lebanon's ministry of health says that 356 people have now been killed as result of Israeli strikes in towns and villages in southern Lebanon, Bekaa and Baalbek, since this morning.
It says that 24 children and 42 women are among those killed, while 1,246 others have been injured.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed, it should not exist. Israel should be dismantled and a new political entity formed. Note that this does not mean I think “all the Jews should leave”, but rather a multi ethnic and tolerant democracy should replace Israel.

I don't completely disagree with you here, although I think Israel needs to evolve rather than be replaced.

Maybe you should visit some Palestinian ones too.

I can't say I've ever come across one, but should I do so I will.

Nobody is asking you to ignore it, but the West is supporting, arming and funding only one side. It is incumbent on decent people like us who live in democracies to apply pressure to what is de facto our own side, because that can make a real difference.

With the other side being armed by the likes of Iran. That said, where Israel crosses the line we should indeed apply pressure on them to stop. Much of the debate appears to centre around where exactly that line can realistically be drawn....

t isn’t non-analogous. You don’t like it because it creates a moral quandary where you know for sure you wouldn’t tolerate this sort of barbarism against Irish or British people, but feel empowered to equivocate and excuse state terror against Lebanese Muslims.

My moral quandary has nothing to do with who the victims are, and what makes you think I hold Lebanese Muslims in such low regard?

It didn’t in reality, but that is how it was packaged and sold to the West. I feel certain that many Israelis must see the rocket attacks rained on them and feel that they are vastly less safe then they are in places like Britain. The issue is not their actual safety but the herronvolk mentality which has led them to create a colonial ethnostate which exists only through using violence and terror. If Jewish people *only* wanted to feel safe, why would they live *there*? Israel does believe in its divine right to exist.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. The situation is vastly more complex than you're willing to acknowledge and violence and terror are not, and never have been, the sole preserve of Israel or Jews.

Again though, that doesn't give Israel carte blanche to kill Palestinian (or Lebanese) civilians recklessly or indiscriminately; very few people are arguing otherwise.

So it’s worse when a state does it.

If the state deliberately targets civilians, or it's actions result in disproportionate collateral damage, yes.

The difference is the race and religion of the people involved, so I don’t think describing them as “not remotely analogous” is especially progressive.

I've never claimed to be "progressive", however I'll repeat again: the difference has nothing to do with the race and religion of the people involved. Perhaps it does to you though?

How many children should the state kill? How many would be acceptable to you to achieve this aim? I mean two hasn’t really moved the dial with you here.

The state should kill no children at all. The acceptable number is zero. How many Israeli civilians should terrorists be allowed to (literally) butcher before Israel responds? And how should it respond?

(These kind of emotive arguments do little to advance the discussion incidentally).

What would the non violent solution be? Are you sure there is one?

The first step is to agree a ceasefire. However that will require goodwill, compromise, and a willingness from the international community to step up, all of which are in short supply. The proposed ceasefire agreement is a starting point, but the key issue (and unfortunately schism) is the immediate and long term future of Gaza.

 

[brad465]

The first step is to agree a ceasefire. However that will require goodwill, compromise, and a willingness from the international community to step up, all of which are in short supply. The proposed ceasefire agreement is a starting point, but the key issue (and unfortunately schism) is the immediate and long term future of Gaza.

There was a ceasefire agreed by the UN Security Council earlier this year, which is unprecedented given that nobody vetoed it. However on the ground the Israeli government have seemingly ignored it; Hamas said they accepted it and would be happy to negotiate (although of course they could have just said this knowing the Israeli government would oppose it as a means to take the moral high ground):

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11/

Hamas accepts a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution and is ready to negotiate over the details, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters on Tuesday, adding that it was up to Washington to ensure that Israel abides by it.
Hamas accepts the UN security council resolution in regard to the ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli troops and swap of hostages for detainees held by Israel, he said.
"The U.S. administration is facing a real test to carry out its commitments in compelling the occupation to immediately end the war in an implementation of the UN Security Council resolution," Abu Zuhri said.

 

[DustyBin]

There was a ceasefire agreed by the UN Security Council earlier this year, which is unprecedented given that nobody vetoed it. However on the ground the Israeli government have seemingly ignored it; Hamas said they accepted it and would be happy to negotiate (although of course they could have just said this knowing the Israeli government would oppose it as a means to take the moral high ground):

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hamas-accepts-un-ceasefire-resolution-ready-negotiate-over-details-official-says-2024-06-11/

Yes, and Hamas rejected the second attempt as Israel insisted on maintaining defacto control of Gaza which was never going to be acceptable. Going back to my previous post, this appears to be the main sticking point.

I think both sides are playing games to be honest.

 

[nw1]

Degrading Hamas’s capability in order to prevent another massacre of Israeli civilians, whilst taking reasonable steps to minimise collateral damage, is a legitimate military objective.

And if innocent civilians are killed by the army as a result, is that acceptable? "We must eliminate Hamas at all costs, and if a 'few' Arabs die as a result, so be it (shrug). They don't matter." seems to be the attitude of Netanyahu and Likud.

 

[DustyBin]

And if innocent civilians are killed by the army as a result, is that acceptable? "We must eliminate Hamas at all costs, and if a 'few' Arabs die as a result, so be it (shrug). They don't matter." seems to be the attitude of Netanyahu and Likud.

You snipped my post to omit this part:

Attempting to mop up the dregs of Hamas whilst committing genocidal acts (intentionally or otherwise) is not.

I agree with you in regard to Netanyahu.

 

[nw1]

You snipped my post to omit this part:



I agree with you in regard to Netanyahu.

Sorry - was just a bit annoyed last night after hearing the latest collateral killings by him.

 

[brad465]

In news that won't surprise anyone who has been following affairs, Israeli ground troops are being told to prepare for an incursion into southern Lebanon:

Lebanon strikes are preparation for ground incursion, Israel army chief tells troops

Lt Gen Herzi Halevi says the Israeli military is preparing for a "manoeuvre", after a week of escalating cross-border fighting.

www.bbc.co.uk

Israeli strikes 'in preparation for possible entry' into Lebanon - army chief
​

Israel's latest strikes on Lebanon are in preparation for the possible entry of troops, an army chief says.

"You hear the jets overhead; we have been striking all day. This is both to prepare the ground for your possible entry and to continue degrading Hezbollah," Herzi Halevi told troops.

"Today, Hezbollah expanded its range of fire, and later today, they will receive a very strong response. Prepare yourselves.

"Today, we will continue, we are not stopping; we keep striking and hitting them everywhere. The goal is very clear—to safely return the residents of the north."

He adds that to "achieve that", the military is "preparing the process of a maneuver, which means your military boots, your maneuvering boots, will enter enemy territory, enter villages that Hezbollah has prepared as large military outposts".

 

[DustyBin]

Sorry - was just a bit annoyed last night after hearing the latest collateral killings by him.

No need to apologise, I didn’t take it as a pop at me personally.

 

[nw1]

In news that won't surprise anyone who has been following affairs, Israeli ground troops are being told to prepare for an incursion into southern Lebanon:

Lebanon strikes are preparation for ground incursion, Israel army chief tells troops

Lt Gen Herzi Halevi says the Israeli military is preparing for a "manoeuvre", after a week of escalating cross-border fighting.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is beyond the pale. Netanyahu and the Likud government are blatantly, and unambiguously, threatening to invade someone else's sovereign territory.

Time for the West to to take a firm stance. Never mind the moral and ethical reasons why we should not support countries who invade other countries, but for our own good too. As in, avoiding terrorist reprisals through being seen to be displaying positive prejudice towards Netanyahu and Likud. The West sadly has a rather long and unpleasant history of supporting rogue political movements if they are right-wing and free-market: see also the Contra Rebels and of course Thatcher's best buddy from Chile.

Also perhaps time for the West to actively work towards removing Netanyahu and Likud from power by actively working with, and funding, any party in Israel who think it is unacceptable to bomb and slaughter innocent Palestinian and foreign citizens.

 

[Bluejays]

I think there's a bit of a question around Hezbollah's lack of a decent fightback. Have they been damaged so much they can't mount one, or is it the case that the Iranians are withholding backing/authorisation to really hit back?

Lots of talk about immediate ceasefire. But I really wouldn't be surprised if a lot of governments are giving a lot of support behind the scenes to the Israelis at present. The chance to explore the possibility of inflicting a mortal blow against an absolutely vile organisation like Hezbollah is worth looking at. The aura they had is dented big time. Thousands of those tough lads with guns who'd been swaggering around their towns and cities are now lying blinded or maimed in hospitals, while tens of thousands of their rockets are being blown up in their launchers. Wouldn't be surprised to see the other factions in Lebanon start to have a pop against Hezbollah aswell.

Hezbollah are a big reason that Lebanon is verging on a failed state, lots of people with grudges to settle suddenly have a chance to do so. I really hope that some other groups within Lebanon take this opportunity, the opportunity to get their country back from the clutches of this Iranian/Syrian proxy.