Yes exactly, I do think some users on here do think the assault on innocent Palestinians is deserved though.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Hamas/Gaza/Israel
- Thread starter Greenbag50
- Start date
It obviously isn't designed to directly 'help' anyone. Stop Oil protesters throwing orange powder over a tennis court, do not think that direct act is going to stop the Maldives sinking into the ocean.Not sure exactly how this helps the Palestinians
Now a THIRD McDonald's is hit by pro-Palestine mice attack
A masked gang of pro-Palestine activists hurled rodents at a third McDonald's restaurant in Birmingham while chanting and flag-waving in protest at the fast food chain's alleged support of Israel.www.dailymail.co.uk
Surely like any other direct protest, it is just designed to grab headlines and thus raise awareness, of their cause (in this case Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and McDonald's perceived support of the Israeli regime).
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,185
It's hardly 'someone else's war' is it.
As I've been trying to communicate throughout this thread. This present conflict has deep roots in European Colonialism. I also agree with Noam Chomsky when he says that what we are currently seeing from 'settlers' in the OPT's are the last throws of European Colonialism.
I put that article up about the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya simply to show what the position is of TODAY'S UK Government, through a continuous position of previous UK Governments of all persuasions. Our Governments have point blank refused to formally apologise for our Colonial past, likely because it opens us up to paying full reparations.
You cannot divorce our past history from our current position regarding support of Israel and it's Governments actions. It's as simple as that really, and the reason why it never surprises me that the UK and US always give unequivocal support to Israel, no matter what. Until that position changes, this current one sided conflict will always continue there.
Bringing religion into it, as I know you're always keen to have a bash there. I would even go so far as to say that Christianity is also at the root cause of this conflict. Jerusalem as a city has been fought over for thousands of years, by various Empires and peoples, but it's broadly speaking when European Christianity becomes involved, via The Crusades, that we begin to see so much intolerance and slaughter. It's essentially the birth of Anti Semitism as, a bit of an over simplification but broadly true, Arabs and Jews, lived peacefully side by side until The Christians sought to eradicate Judaism and Islam. This is a good setting out of the history of Jerusalem btw...
The conflict in this region is of course very very complex. I've massively oversimplified I know, but in essence I can't help feeling that Christianity and European Colonialism has been massively destructive and led us to where we are today. It's pretty much set cousins against each other so that now we have extreme forms of Judaism and Islam prevailing and trying to exterminate each other. I've no idea how this comes to a peaceful conclusion, especially as the UN, as has been pointed out by someone else on here, is essentially just a debating society on this matter all the time the veto is used by super powers with vested interests.
I don't disagree with any of your analysis. For what it is worth I think the whole creation of Israel was handled badly. But we can't turn back the clock.
My point was that I don't see how any of this facilitates a solution. For example, telling Israel that we made a mistake giving you these lands isn't going to happen. Affixing blame and obtaining revenge are impossible and wrong.
And I'm not suggesting I have any answers. I don't. My only suggestion was that it would have been better on this occasion for Israel to have been the 'bigger man' and not retaliated against Hamas. That said I can perfectly understand the reason why it did, even if I disapprove (because it was largely Bibi ensuring that he do what his minority zealot party coalition partners want).
And if ever there was a reason to not view a coalition as the panacea to solve the 'unfair' FPTP conundrum, this may be it.
I don't think they do, well most of them anyway, and I've thought about this a lot over the last week as the attacks from a previous NSCer went on and on.
I think most people will agree on all of this...
- The Israel population deserve to live in peace, free of the threat of rampaging terrorists and rocket attacks
- More widely, Jewish people everywhere deserve to live a life without suffering antisemitism
- Palestinians deserve to live in peace, with freedom and opportunity.
- Hamas need to be removed for the benefit of all concerned
I think the difference of opinion primarily comes down to one point...
- How far should Israel be able to go in order to eradicate Hamas?
Those with strong connections to Israel largely seem to believe that the loss of human life, whilst regrettable, is necessary in order to neutralise Hamas. Short-term pain for long-term gain if you will.
Those who don't have the same ties to Israel look at the huge loss of life happening and largely think "This can't be right".
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
Nail head
Agree with almost all of this.
I think there is one important caveat though, which is that contributions here from various posters, make it clear that people's definition of who are to be considered 'innocent Palestinians' vary significantly.
At one end of the scale, the innocents are every single inhabitant of Gaza who has never directly participated in any violent action against Israel.
At the other end of the scale (and sadly this is where most of the Israeli government ministers appear to sit), anybody who has 'chosen' to live in Gaza, and has failed to lead an insurrection against Hamas' murderous governance, is a de facto Hamas militant. 'Human animals'. 'None are innocent', etc.
There are myriad nuances in between - if someone voted for Hamas in the last elections 16 years ago, but disapproves of the recent terrorist attacks, are they innocents? If someone has never been involved with Hamas but celebrated what will have been presented to them as 'resistance victories', are they innocents?
It seems to me that there are an unfortunately high number of people (some posting on here, and many others elsewhere) who are far too comfortable to mentally move many thousands of people into their personal 'not-innocent' column, with the smallest or most tenuous justifications. And dare I say, in a few cases, largely due to their ethnicity.
Last edited:
- Oct 20, 2022
- 4,978
All true
I don’t think that is the point @borat was making tbh - it is certainly not the case that Hamas is being vindicated by the excessive civilian casualties caused by Israeli bombardments, it is that Israel is almost certainly in violation of international law in doing carrying them out without due care to protecting civilians. Neither side are ‘playing by the rules of war’ - this is a ‘war on terror’ conducted by a highly militarised State where the ‘enemy’ Hamas, is not a State or Country or even within a geographically confined location - and it’s also war perpetrated by radical Jihadist Islamic Fundamentalists against a militarily far superior opponent who is the also the illegal Occupier and oppressor of the land that comprises of the field of combat - where chaos, bartering human life (that of civilians) and avoiding at all costs a ceasefire are the only ‘rules of engagement’ - for both sides.
Posted earlier:
How Does International Humanitarian Law Apply in Israel and Gaza?
In the aftermath of Hamas’s attack on Israel, and Israel’s ensuing bombardment campaign of the Gaza Strip, there is much discussion, by both experts and non-experts, about international humanitarian law (IHL), the law governing armed conflict and military occupation, and its application in the...
Israeli military commanders would argue 1 Hamas leader is worth the ‘collateral’ damage of 50 dead civilians (including young kids) - these people already live in the most horrendous conditions in a sardine can deprived of human rights and the basic of necessities to live - is this dehumanised treatment of the Palestinian people now to be further dehumanised by putting a quantitive value on the life of an innocent Palestinian child as being worth only 2% of the value of a life of a terrorist?
At some point you have to ask - are the sledgehammer methods of maintaining your security worth the lives of 1000s of children or do you need to engage with the ‘enemy’ on another level if you want long term peace?
More mice and now Stick Insects in Yorkshire , no idea what these creatures have done to deserve this ?It obviously isn't designed to directly 'help' anyone. Stop Oil protesters throwing orange powder over a tennis court, do not think that direct act is going to stop the Maldives sinking into the ocean.
Surely like any other direct protest, it is just designed to grab headlines and thus raise awareness, of their cause (in this case Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and McDonald's perceived support of the Israeli regime).
How do you eradicate a terrorist organisation?
The US President has already cautioned Israel citing the mistakes the US made after 9/11.
We helped the US invade Afghanistan to rid the world of the Taliban. Yup. That worked well.
Closer to home, after 40 odd years of trying to use military might to eradicate the IRA, peace was only achieved after a ceasefire, talks and an agreement.
In a recent tv documentary on the troubles in NI nearly every former IRA activist / supporter said they joined the IRA after the Bloody Sunday murders. The Parachute Regiment was the biggest recruiter the IRA ever had. Gaza's population is extremely young. The Israeli actions will surely just be a recruitment campaign for Hamas and other similar terrorist organisations.
eradicate
verb [ T ]
formal
uk
to get rid of something completely or destroy something bad:
At what point would you consider Hamas to have been eradicated? And how do you achieve the eradication of Hamas without killing hundreds of thousands of ordinary, innocent Palestinians - just to be on the safe side?
Lets say Hamas are removed - you would expect eventually some form of armed resistance to spring up (and justifiably so) to the occupation.
The West Bank does not have Hamas in charge and Palestinians still suffer displacement, subjugation and death.
The analysis also fails to put any onus on the far right Israeli government. You could flip your question on its head to.... ''How far should Palestinians go in order to eradicate their occupiers''
As far as resolution is concerned - Unless the US and allies puts severe political and financial pressure on Israel, nothing will change long term.
I don't agree with that, unless it was posted by someone I have on ignore. The worst most have done is acknowledge the 'logic' that Bibi has 'applied' to reach his decision to employ genocide. In fact I have barely see a sniff of any blame, just some wistful comments about wishing it could all have been different, and acknowledging that both parties have behaved abominably.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 26,087
I'm sorry but I disagree vehemently with this (and I'm not sure that this is your opinion, or more a summation of what you see).
If Hamas are 'eradicated' do you honestly believe nothing will take their place ? History (and particularly recent history in that geographical region) shows this will not happen.
There are only two ways to a peaceful solution.
Removing the reasons behind the formation of Hamas and the other terrorist groups in the region.
Negotiation between all invested parties including the terrorist groups (exactly as happened in Northern Ireland)
Eradicating any group will simply ensure more generations of horrific violence and innocent deaths
Many also worry about the long term. When questioned Israeli officials refuse to give any answers. There will come a time when Israel will have to cease their bombardment. What will be left will be a huge graveyard. Uninhabitable.
I would hope it was quite obvious that I have severe concerns about Israel's current strategy for two broad reasons...I'm sorry but I disagree vehemently with this (and I'm not sure that this is your opinion, or more a summation of what you see).
If Hamas are 'eradicated' do you honestly believe nothing will take their place ? History (and particularly recent history in that geographical region) shows this will not happen.
There are only two ways to a peaceful solution.
Removing the reasons behind the formation of Hamas and the other terrorist groups in the region.
Negotiation between all invested parties including the terrorist groups (exactly as happened in Northern Ireland)
Eradicating any group will simply ensure more generations of horrific violence and innocent deaths
- They are killing untold thousands of innocent people.
- When Iarael's campaign is over, there'll be people remaining who have seen utter devastation in Gaza, and that is sure to be a breeding ground for more anti-Israel radicalism.
I did initially use the word "neutralise" instead of "eradicate". Regardless, I don't see Israel's approach as one likely to lead to long-term peace, and it's causing a lot of short-term misery.
aolstudios
Well-known member
Spot on - regardless of whether Hamas are replaced like the head of a hydra by some other monstrous growth, as some have correctly anticipated. Israel can deal only with what faces them now.