[News] Hamas/Gaza/Israel

[Seagull58]

Well, their current approach appears to be by wiping out a whole population. Yeah, that’ll work.

Don't you have an alternative suggestion?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

T

the one I read confirmed cancellation of a planned ‘vigil’ in London …unless you are referring to say the one in Manchester the following day

The one in Westminster seems to have gone ahead - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ts-and-vigils-in-london-over-israel-hamas-war

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Don't you have an alternative suggestion?

I do - properly targeted attacks by land based forces - special forces - if they know where to bomb then they know where to where to send those special forces. Yes, they'll take casualties but better armed forces casualties than innocent civilians including babies and children.

 

[LamieRobertson]

The one in Westminster seems to have gone ahead - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ts-and-vigils-in-london-over-israel-hamas-war

Forgive me I wasn’t suggesting that none had ..but merely referring to last weekend and possibly the weekend before ..therefore leading to none in that city this coming weekend on their chosen day

 

[Seagull58]

I do - properly targeted attacks by land based forces - special forces - if they know where to bomb then they know where to where to send those special forces. Yes, they'll take casualties but better armed forces casualties than innocent civilians including babies and children.

That is certainly an approach but Hamas operatives hide in plain sight amongst the civilian population, plus their launchers are located in/on residential buildings. How many special forces teams would Israel need to send in to deal with many rocket launchers firing hundreds of rockets a day? If you look at three US special forces operations; they were successful in taking out Bin Laden but they were unsuccessful in Mogadishu and the attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages. Only one out of three was successful and each operation involved multiple helicopters.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I don't believe that peace has ever been achieved anywhere in the world by wiping out a terrorist organisation or their elected representatives without addressing the reasons behind the creation of that organisation. In most cases, and particularly in the Middle east, wiping out one group in power simply leaves a vacuum for the next, more radical group to take advantage of. And yet it continues onward with thousands of innocent civilians really on 'the front line'. If either side 'wipes out the other', it's obvious the killing of innocents won't cease, it will simply become worse and more ingrained.

If there is ever going to be any solution (or even lessening of the current situation) it can only come about through negotiation and anyone who claims otherwise is simply supporting the increasing number of innocent civilians killed, whether they are aware of it or not.

A far simpler situation in Northern Ireland but it did have two groups claiming 'ownership' of a single piece of land and killing people from the 'other side'. Let's not forget that relative peace was achieved in Northern Ireland by successive British Governments negotiating with terrorist organisations on both sides whilst loudly announcing to the world that they would not negotiate with terrorist organisations.

Now looking back, I think everyone agrees, it was exactly the right thing to do. If we had carried on 'not negotiating' we would have had many more thousands of killings today. And, I believe, the same applies in this current conflict.

 

[Zeberdi]

I think you'll also find that the mild disruption in London does nothing at all to alleviate the suffering in Gaza, or assist in any way to end the crisis, or indeed do anything positive at all.
I also think you'll find that if it did any of these things, it would would get a lot of support from most people.

Indirectly (even directly sometimes) - demonstration/public protest and vigils in Countries with parliamentary democracies are a useful litmus test for MPs to gauge public opinion for these issues and thus whether to hold the Government’s foreign policy to account either favourably or negatively - demonstrations in one Country can influence the outcome of a conflict in another (as well as its own) if popular opinion influences the decision as to whether or not a Prime Minister/President agrees to ‘boots on the ground’ for example in a war where the her/his Country’s interests are being threatened. Demonstrations bring the issues more directly into contact with the general public and provide a platform for promoting change which in itself can alleviate suffering when listeners eg donate to international aid groups and other NGOs with relief. Demonstrations attract media attention which in turn informs the electorate through in depth analysis and background reports. Public opinion matters to Politicians. An informed electorate can change the course of history.

 

[Zeberdi]

Now looking back, I think everyone agrees, it was exactly the right thing to do. If we had carried on 'not negotiating' we would have had many more thousands of killings today.

Yes, ironically the old Thatcher belligerence of refusing to “negotiate with terrorists” saw some of the worst terrorism on British soil in the IRA’s 28 year campaign.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Don't you have an alternative suggestion?

Get the UN to bang some heads together, stop the massacres, renegotiate just who owns what in the region and get the UN to manage it. The U.K. and UN got it wrong last time - they should have split the whole lot down the middle and recognised each as independent states.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Yes, ironically the old Thatcher belligerence of refusing to “negotiate with terrorists” saw some of the worst terrorism on British soil in the IRA’s 28 year campaign.

But ironically, while saying that, she was negotiating with them in the latter part of her term and did help to get us to where we are today

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I don't believe that peace has ever been achieved anywhere in the world by wiping out a terrorist organisation or their elected representatives without addressing the reasons behind the creation of that organisation. In most cases, and particularly in the Middle east, wiping out one group in power simply leaves a vacuum for the next, more radical group to take advantage of. And yet it continues onward with thousands of innocent civilians really on 'the front line'. If either side 'wipes out the other', it's obvious the killing of innocents won't cease, it will simply become worse and more ingrained.

If there is ever going to be any solution (or even lessening of the current situation) it can only come about through negotiation and anyone who claims otherwise is simply supporting the increasing number of innocent civilians killed, whether they are aware of it or not.

A far simpler situation in Northern Ireland but it did have two groups claiming 'ownership' of a single piece of land and killing people from the 'other side'. Let's not forget that relative peace was achieved in Northern Ireland by successive British Governments negotiating with terrorist organisations on both sides whilst loudly announcing to the world that they would not negotiate with terrorist organisations.

Now looking back, I think everyone agrees, it was exactly the right thing to do. If we had carried on 'not negotiating' we would have had many more thousands of killings today. And, I believe, the same applies in this current conflict.

Indeed to all of this. Also, another similarity with NI is that it involved two religious groups ( as well as the British ). One might argue that religion is one of the root causes for many a war ( slightly simplistic I know ) and if we had no religions the world would be a much safer place to live.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Of course. How do you propose Israel stops Hamas firing rockets from Gaza?

Offer a ceasefire, and meaningful discussions on a two state solution?

 

[Bakero]

Get the UN to bang some heads together, stop the massacres, renegotiate just who owns what in the region and get the UN to manage it. The U.K. and UN got it wrong last time - they should have split the whole lot down the middle and recognised each as independent states.

Any UN effort to get involved has been scuppered by the American veto. Almost half of UN resolutions have related to Israel and the US blocks every one of them.

 

[GT49er]

Indirectly (even directly sometimes) - demonstration/public protest and vigils in Countries with parliamentary democracies are a useful litmus test for MPs to gauge public opinion for these issues and thus whether to hold the Government’s foreign policy to account either favourably or negatively - demonstrations in one Country can influence the outcome of a conflict in another (as well as its own) if popular opinion influences the decision as to whether or not a Prime Minister/President agrees to ‘boots on the ground’ for example in a war where the her/his Country’s interests are being threatened. Demonstrations bring the issues more directly into contact with the general public and provide a platform for promoting change which in itself can alleviate suffering when listeners eg donate to international aid groups and other NGOs with relief. Demonstrations attract media attention which in turn informs the electorate through in depth analysis and background reports. Public opinion matters to Politicians. An informed electorate can change the course of history.

These demonstrations - Israeli or Palestinian - aren't 'informing' anybody about anything. Nor are they a litmus test of public opinion, just groups of people, pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, expressing their hatred for the other side, and demonstrating their inability - or unwillingness - to realise that there is guilt, decades of it, on both sides.

 

[Bakero]

These demonstrations - Israeli or Palestinian - aren't 'informing' anybody about anything. Nor are they a litmus test of public opinion, just groups of people, pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, expressing their hatred for the other side, and demonstrating their inability - or unwillingness - to realise that there is guilt, decades of it, on both sides.

Do you feel this way about demonstrations in general? Sorry to go off topic, but are there any protests that have taken place in the last 40 years say that you supported/understood?

 

[Krafty]

These demonstrations - Israeli or Palestinian - aren't 'informing' anybody about anything. Nor are they a litmus test of public opinion, just groups of people, pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, expressing their hatred for the other side, and demonstrating their inability - or unwillingness - to realise that there is guilt, decades of it, on both sides.

Well you are talking about a selection of people, others just want to show solidarity for the innocent civilians of Israel and Palestine who are struggling in this conflict.
It is important that we can 'inform' others about what is happening across the world, and I think meeting protesters and listening to their stories/views (even if you disagree with them) is useful.

 

[SeagullinExile]

Guns for the Mujahedeen, death squads in Latin America, dictators worldwide. Uncle Sam will get into bed with anyone to maintain hegemony and keep the oil flowing.

Confessions of an Economic hitman by John Perkins goes into all this in great detail.

Interesting read.

 

[Greenbag50]

FACT CHECK

You are incorrect to refer to the marches as ‘Jihad’ marches - Being ‘Palestinian’ doesn’t conflate with being a ‘Jihad’ - Jihadists are radicalised Islamic fundamentalists who use terror and violence to pursue an ideology (distinct from the Palestine cause for freedom and civil liberties) - the people marching in London are overwhelmingly non-supportive of violence and consist of a wide ethnic diversity of protestors - edit look at these images for example

London’s ‘March For Palestine’ draws 100,000 demanding Gaza ceasefire

Pro-Palestine supporters march again in London calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and the safe delivery of aid

www.aljazeera.com

And the chant is ‘from the river to the sea’ - not ‘from the river to see’

Uninformed opinions fail at the first hurdle in the race to impress.

Oh well that’s ok then to hear Jihad openly being advocated on the streets of UK. Nor do I want to see posters of missing kidnapped children being pulled down.
The message from river to the sea doesn’t need pedants. The message is unequivocall.
Your opinion is yours and mine is nine, I don't want want to see this conflict of either side in the streets of London or anywhere else outside the Middle East in either side.

 

[Greenbag50]

Maybe go to Gaza and see the 'disruption' there and then decide if you want to complain about a protest in bomb free London.

I don’t want to live in the Middle East or anywhere else.

 

[Greenbag50]

I think you'll find most people feel the importance of events in Israel and Gaza somewhat outweigh some mild disruption in London.

That’s the point, we don’t live in the Middle East or Gaza.