Israel, Palestine and Iran

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

How on earth have the two main parties in this country got themselves so caught up in tricksy language and supporting an extremist right wing government in Israel that when thousands of children are killed and residential areas are being bombed flat they cannot countenance the use of the word ceasefire?

The absolute panic at there being any loss of control to a point where there cannot be any discussion or debate or challenge.

What an utterly grim state we are in at the moment. Pox on them all. 

I'll have to caveat this, because otherwise..well...

So here's the caveat - I'd hope and want there to be a ceasefire, immediately. So that's my personal view on the killing.

And now to answer the question. It's, I think, because of this: A terrorist group, with 45,000 plus soldiers which is intent on eliminating Israel and jews has perpetrated mass murder, rape, abductions and so on, on a democratic (albeit horribly right wing, at the moment) nation. That nation got, immediately after the attack on 7 October words of solidarity and support from other democracies, including our Government, and our (hoping to be) next government. The leaders of the parties were told by Israel that Israel cannot let the rocket attacks, atrocities and murders ever be repeated, and as democratic leaders they agreed, or sympathised with that message. No government could countenance themselves not responding to massive terrorist attack on their country's civilians.

But having rushed to put themselves in (in their eyes) the "right" stance, Israel has then used overwhelming violence to, bluntly, seek bloody revenge. With essentially no clear plan other than to do whatever it takes to eliminate Hamas's 40,000 + fighters, whatever the consequences for the civilians in Gaza.

So they're stuck - they support, or agree with the notion of Israel defending itself and its people, they accept that some kind of military action is necessary and (in their eyes) has to be allowed to have its chance. They have genuine support for Israel, but also have genuine "concerns" (in political speak) about all the dead babies and people. They therefore have to use political weasel words to try to reconcile two irreconcilable things. They don't want to call for a ceasefire, because that means Hamas winning. They don't want to see all dead people and rubble, because that means we do too, and we don't want our governments to support or agree with Israel making all dead babies and old people and suffering.

So they end up just looking like namby pamby idiots.

The other thing, of course, is that whatever they say, it makes not the slightest bit of difference to what Israel does or doesn't do. Israel doesn't give a fig what Kier Starmer or Rishi Sunak says, other than PR. Hamas similarly.

[desensitized43]

2 hours ago, pas5898 said:

If Hamas had the firepower Israel has, there wouldn't have been an Israel many years ago. It's literally in their manifesto to destroy the Jews.

18% percent of those living in Israel are Palestinians / Muslim. Obviously it's not blissful tranquillity, but it's a lot better than any Jew walking through any predominantly Muslim country on earth. 

<1% in Gaza are Christians / Jews. Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iraq all had Jewish settlements effectively removed, as let's be honest you just cannot be Jewish in many predominantly Muslim countries. There is a deep almost DNA level hatred.

If the shoe was on the other foot, Israel itself would have failed to exist a long time ago.  

 

I agree 100% which is why my instinct has always been that we and other countries need to support Israel (within reason) and ensure it's many enemies cannot wipe it off the map as they tried to do many times in it's early existence because given the means they wouldn't hesistate. The only reason they haven't tried again is because we've armed them to the teeth and the US would intervene but the moment we weaken on that resolve there's a massive problem.

I know this will probably be a pretty controversial opinion, but I do think from what I've seen and heard that there's a very sizable number of Muslims, some of whom live in the UK, who'd be quite happy to see Israel and it's people wiped out. That's not to say all Muslims feel that way, but I think there's a lot. Sorry, I hate that kind of generalisation and I know it's going to get some flack but it's my opinion.

[chrisp65]

30 minutes ago, blandy said:

I'll have to caveat this, because otherwise..well...

So here's the caveat - I'd hope and want there to be a ceasefire, immediately. So that's my personal view on the killing.

And now to answer the question. It's, I think, because of this: A terrorist group, with 45,000 plus soldiers which is intent on eliminating Israel and jews has perpetrated mass murder, rape, abductions and so on, on a democratic (albeit horribly right wing, at the moment) nation. That nation got, immediately after the attack on 7 October words of solidarity and support from other democracies, including our Government, and our (hoping to be) next government. The leaders of the parties were told by Israel that Israel cannot let the rocket attacks, atrocities and murders ever be repeated, and as democratic leaders they agreed, or sympathised with that message. No government could countenance themselves not responding to massive terrorist attack on their country's civilians.

But having rushed to put themselves in (in their eyes) the "right" stance, Israel has then used overwhelming violence to, bluntly, seek bloody revenge. With essentially no clear plan other than to do whatever it takes to eliminate Hamas's 40,000 + fighters, whatever the consequences for the civilians in Gaza.

So they're stuck - they support, or agree with the notion of Israel defending itself and its people, they accept that some kind of military action is necessary and (in their eyes) has to be allowed to have its chance. They have genuine support for Israel, but also have genuine "concerns" (in political speak) about all the dead babies and people. They therefore have to use political weasel words to try to reconcile two irreconcilable things. They don't want to call for a ceasefire, because that means Hamas winning. They don't want to see all dead people and rubble, because that means we do too, and we don't want our governments to support or agree with Israel making all dead babies and old people and suffering.

So they end up just looking like namby pamby idiots.

The other thing, of course, is that whatever they say, it makes not the slightest bit of difference to what Israel does or doesn't do. Israel doesn't give a fig what Kier Starmer or Rishi Sunak says, other than PR. Hamas similarly.

Yep you’re right there’s a lot to unpick and every sentence comes with a caveat.

But they (the two parties) are banning dissent from a compromised line. They don’t have to agree with it, this is a democracy. 

This democracy we are siding with, what would the government of that democracy look like if 750,000 Palestinians hadn’t been pushed out of it. Is it really a democracy when you select on race and religion who gets to vote? That’s with the knowledge it isn’t a 100% Jewish state and some Arabs and some Hindus and some aetheists do get to own a home and run a business and vote. But its been stacked. Would we allow the DUP to manipulate who gets a vote in Northern Ireland and still call it a democracy? 

Yes, other nations around it want it extinguished, Hamas want it extinguished. Do we accept a forever war? Remember back in the 1980’s when Israel pushed the PLO all the way back to Beirut. They laid siege, they bombed and starved the population and they killed thousands and cut the water supply. This was to act as the final death of armed resistance against Israel. It contravened all the nice rules but it was to finish resistance once and for all.

Yet here we are, 40 years later bombing families in Gaza to have the thing finished once and for all in Israel’s favour. It’s almost as if both sides actually need to talk to each other and accept killing millions is not really that easy so they need a plan B.

If all we are doing here is staying on the right side of the U.S. in a conflict where we think we actually have no influence, let’s all pack up and go home because that’s about as snivelling and second rate as it gets.

I guess another way of looking at this is with the current push to always make sure Hamas is described as a terrorist organisation, we need to ask ourselves what we were doing about that on October 6th? Were we content to let terrorists run a state within a state and hold 2.3 million people captive and allow the UN to operate and co-operate with them, and send aid? Have we been complicit in allowing a terrorist organisation to hold a population hostage? Why do we allow them an observer status at the UN?

It’s a bodge job and its being exposed so the plan is to smash it up sufficiently to buy another decade or two before we all have to pretend it’s something new on the agenda. 

Banning politicians from discussing it ain’t going to help in any way. It just enables and legitimises the killing.

On the plus side, I guess we might get some arms orders out of it. Don’t forget, by our own rules we can’t sell arms if we think there is a clear chance they could be used in contravention of international law? By continuing to sell, we are saying Israel is acting within international humanitarian law when it bombs families. We all know that’s a lie. But, y’know, money and influence. Easier to ban politicians having a grown up discussion.

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I'll have to caveat this, because otherwise..well...

So here's the caveat - I'd hope and want there to be a ceasefire, immediately. So that's my personal view on the killing.

And now to answer the question. It's, I think, because of this: A terrorist group, with 45,000 plus soldiers which is intent on eliminating Israel and jews has perpetrated mass murder, rape, abductions and so on, on a democratic (albeit horribly right wing, at the moment) nation. That nation got, immediately after the attack on 7 October words of solidarity and support from other democracies, including our Government, and our (hoping to be) next government. The leaders of the parties were told by Israel that Israel cannot let the rocket attacks, atrocities and murders ever be repeated, and as democratic leaders they agreed, or sympathised with that message. No government could countenance themselves not responding to massive terrorist attack on their country's civilians.

But having rushed to put themselves in (in their eyes) the "right" stance, Israel has then used overwhelming violence to, bluntly, seek bloody revenge. With essentially no clear plan other than to do whatever it takes to eliminate Hamas's 40,000 + fighters, whatever the consequences for the civilians in Gaza.

So they're stuck - they support, or agree with the notion of Israel defending itself and its people, they accept that some kind of military action is necessary and (in their eyes) has to be allowed to have its chance. They have genuine support for Israel, but also have genuine "concerns" (in political speak) about all the dead babies and people. They therefore have to use political weasel words to try to reconcile two irreconcilable things. They don't want to call for a ceasefire, because that means Hamas winning. They don't want to see all dead people and rubble, because that means we do too, and we don't want our governments to support or agree with Israel making all dead babies and old people and suffering.

I'd add that I think it's been fairly well established that most Western leaders who hold any sway over the direction of travel are publicly backing the Israeli actions to the hilt, while privately pressuring them to not do all the stuff that they're doing. 

Whether that makes it any better or not, I don't know.

It probably doesn't, but it's also not completely accurate to say that the UK, US et al "support" the current actions. They're having to do the same dance around  how every option is a terrible option that we all are, but without the luxury that we have of our takes not having massive geopolitical consequences. 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by ml1dch

[chrisp65]

24 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I'd add that I think it's been fairly well established that most Western leaders who hold any sway over the direction of travel are publicly backing the Israeli actions to the hilt, while privately pressuring them to not do all the stuff that they're doing. 

Whether that makes it any better or not, I don't know.

It probably doesn't, but it's also not completely accurate to say that the UK, US et al "support" the current actions. They're having to do the same dance around  how every option is a terrible option that we all are, but without the luxury that we have of our takes not having massive geopolitical consequences. 

 

 

The consequence in our case of course including 300,000 people on the streets in what their own Home Secretary labels a hate march.

People with relatives in Gaza and in Israel being told there is nothing we can as a ceasefire would embolden terrorists. Terrorists that run a strip of land that our government have been happy to allow our citizens to travel to and from. Odd that.

These actions were not really supporting, I guess that means the end of export licenses for arms then?

Compromise, close down debate, profit. 

 

 

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

If all we are doing here is staying on the right side of the U.S. in a conflict where we think we actually have no influence, let’s all pack up and go home because that’s about as snivelling and second rate as it gets.

Two, or maybe three things. Firstly, it’s “standard practice” for the uk to follow the US line on stuff, but a little bit less stridently - so yeah, we’re doing that. Secondly, no we have no influence, but thirdly if the politicians actually said so they could stop treading a fine line, stop imposing party discipline for those who step off that fine line and also perhaps calm the debate in this country a little bit. It’s not so much snivelling and second rate as not pretending that the uk is still some kind of world power. We’re not. We’re a medium sized nation, with a lone voice that’s known for being a bit of a poodle to the US, and which has been ceding what influence we used to hold for decades now.

Israel is gonna do what Israel does, Hamas ditto, Iran ditto. They’re all intent on annihilating the other side.

[Thug]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Here’s mine.

Edit; I believe there are outside influences on our politicians. [ I initially referred to this outside influence as a particular organisation that has since been pointed out to me that could be considered anti-Semitic.  This was not my intention, so apologies to anyone that I offended.]

The hypocrisy of some people is so mind boggling that it makes you wonder if people are just deliberately doing it.

’Israel has a right to defend it self’. this defence apparently includes killing non-civilians.

Let’s rewind to October 6th.

Palestinians are being terrorised daily by Israel - fact.  Do the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves? Does this include killing Israeli civilians? I would say no, and no. Neither is ok. 

Neither is defence.

It doesn’t take more than a few brain cells to figure out what is happening is not ok. For anyone to stand up and say it is ok on ANY level needs to examine their inner morals. If anyone believes that Israel’s actions here are going to end Hamas, they’re lying to themselves.

For those that don’t understand what I’m saying, answer these two questions honestly in your own hearts.  Put everything else to one side. 

1) if Hamas were hiding in Israel, would the ‘IDF’ be bombing Israeli civilian infrastructure, saying that it’s not their fault that Hamas were using human shields? 

2) if Hamas were hiding under your house, would it be ok for the IDF to bomb your house and kill your family?

I’m not expecting answers.  Quite frankly, I don’t want to hear any more bullshit excuses for murder.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Thug said:

The Jewish Lobby are far too powerful to allow anyone to have a mind of their own.

Have a word with yourself. It's amazing how you managed to type that yourself and post it on a football forum

It's also antisemitic as defined by the IHRA working definition of Antisemitism

Quote

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

 

[Chindie]

Refugee camp blown up.

[Thug]

 

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

Have a word with yourself. It's amazing how you managed to type that yourself and post it on a football forum

It's also antisemitic as defined by the IHRA working definition of Antisemitism

 

Ok my bad.  Didn’t realise that the organisation I referred to did not exist. 

I shall retract that part of my post, with an apology.  The rest still applies.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Thug

[Tumblerseven]

25 minutes ago, Thug said:

1) if Hamas were hiding in Israel, would the ‘IDF’ be bombing Israeli civilian infrastructure, saying that it’s not their fault that Hamas were using human shields? 

2) if Hamas were hiding under your house, would it be ok for the IDF to bomb your house and kill your family?

I’m not expecting answers.  Quite frankly, I don’t want to hear any more bullshit excuses for murder.

 

 

So i think at this point no one is denying that Israel is kinda callous to Palestinian deaths I think everyone saw it already in 2004 so its nothing new. They hate each other and are mortal enemies its not very difficult to understand why.

Your questions 1and 2 are not real questions. You simplified them and removed critical very important information.

So i will ask the question with the important context and i will answer it. And can you answer this question below?

If Hamas captured my city with 40 000 armed fighters dug tunnels around the city and mined the roads around with IEDs and is using my house as a military base to wage war against my country with my family in it. Would i say that my government would be justified to bomb the house? YES. would i like it? NO.

[foreveryoung]

Refugee camp bombed now by Israel, dozens dead. Apparently Hamss generals were hiding out there. 

[Rustibrooks]

 

Just to target one commander?

[VILLAMARV]

8 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

they only give money.

bought them nukes did they?

[OutByEaster?]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

it’s “standard practice” for the uk to follow the US line on stuff, but a little bit less stridently - so yeah, we’re doing that. Secondly, no we have no influence, but thirdly if the politicians actually said so they could stop treading a fine line, stop imposing party discipline for those who step off that fine line and also perhaps calm the debate in this country a little bit. It’s not so much snivelling and second rate as not pretending that the uk is still some kind of world power. We’re not. We’re a medium sized nation, with a lone voice that’s known for being a bit of a poodle to the US, and which has been ceding what influence we used to hold for decades now.

We're Richard Hammond.

[Jareth]

4 hours ago, Chindie said:

Refugee camp blown up.

But they got the terrorist. The Israeli defence constantly reminds me of the opening scene in Team America.

[VILLAMARV]

3 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

Your questions 1and 2 are not real questions. You simplified them and removed critical very important information.

So i will ask the question with the important context and i will answer it.

[Chindie]

Scum 

[Chindie]

A man with a conscience who can see the reality of what we're witnessing and waving on through.

[Chindie]

And that's just straight up despicable.