Israel, Palestine and Iran

[Jon]

Just now, magnkarl said:

After how many years of fighting, deaths and bombings?

Exactly 

[magnkarl]

Just now, Jon said:

Exactly 

I don’t think you understood my point.

You expect Israel to behave in a morally better way than we did in NE, Iraq, Afghanistan and with ISIL. The troubles lasted the better parts of 100 years before the dialogue solved it, so by your standard Israel and Hamas has at least 25 years to go.

[Jon]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

I don’t think you understood my point.

You expect Israel to behave in a morally better way than we did in NE, Iraq, Afghanistan and with ISIL. The troubles lasted the better parts of 100 years before the dialogue solved it, so by your standard Israel and Hamas has at least 25 years to go.

I'm saying we dealt with it wrong for a long time.  

You'd hope there'd be lessons to be learnt there, but ....

[chrisp65]

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

It’s not remotely comparable and is an invalid (IMO) analogy, the situation in Northern Ireland. That said, you’re right that in the end talking is the only way this stops.

 

Two different people from different religions living in the same place for generations. One lot, historically, invited to take the land of the others and use them for servants and labour. The ruling religion making sure the other lot had second slim pickings on jobs and positions of power. All in a Northern Ireland that has been contrived by Westminster as a line drawn on a map to ensure a Protestant majority in the democracy they form.

One side are condemned as terrorists for bombing, the other brings in the army. 

Also, it wasn’t my analogy.

 

[Tumblerseven]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

Your question starts with a condition. We have to ask whether that condition is both legitimate and practical/ possible. My answer would be that it is legitimate to want to eliminate Hamas, but that it is neither practical nor possible to do it by the means chosen. Further, the means chosen is both radicalising for a new generation of anti Israel terrorists, against international humanitarian law and beyond abhorrent in terms of its impact on Palestinian civilians.

Your question should therefore be a different one. It should be “how, without killing and maiming thousands of innocents can Israel eliminate Hamas and its fighters?” .

That is also a difficult question to answer, but there is an answer. By refraining from the obvious action, of mass bombing, Israel can demonstrate great responsibility and control to the world and thereby garner great support for much more specifically targeted actions, using international support, intelligence, targeted hit squads and special forces, diplomacy and so on, not just against Hamas fighters, but (apart from hit squads) against Hamas’s supporters outside Palestine and the West Bank.

 Oh it is possible not every fighter of course but majority is possible to kill the party or organization of Hamas is possible.

Practical? either go to war destroy terrorist party who is controlling your neighboring country or what? what else more practical thing left to do i dont know no one knows that why this is a mess for 70 years.

I dont think concerning yourself about radicalization of the population when they already radicalized is practical or reasonable. They govern by terrorist party who was elected democratically in 2006 they dont try to overthrow it and they dance in the streets on 911 and London bus bombings no one is concerned about their radicalization at this point.

No my question is as its supposed to be because im 100% convinced that there are people who think that Israel cant fight back or punch back or do anything because they are racist occupying force.

 

more specifically targeted actions what exactly does this mean?

using international support what exactly does this mean.

 targeted hit squads and special forces this is nonsense. You cant send special forces into densely populated city with population who wants to kill you. Mogadishu 1993

[meregreen]

4 hours ago, Jareth said:

Who else behaves like Israel? They’re hitting ambulances. Absolute bastards. 

Who else behaves like Hamas? They’re hitting pop festivals. Absolute bastards.

Doesn’t get us very far does it.

 

 

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Two different people from different religions living in the same place for generations. One lot, historically, invited to take the land of the others and use them for servants and labour. The ruling religion making sure the other lot had second slim pickings on jobs and positions of power. All in a Northern Ireland that has been contrived by Westminster as a line drawn on a map to ensure a Protestant majority in the democracy they form.

One side are condemned as terrorists for bombing, the other brings in the army. 

Also, it wasn’t my analogy.

Well whoever raised it as an analogy I think it’s not a good one. A community split on religious sect grounds, one half wanting to join another country and unite an island/Ireland, the other half wanting to stay part of big Island. The strife was mostly between the members of the NI community, with bad acts carried out by 3 sides, IRA, UDF and the police/army. No one was intent on the elimination of a nation, no one was intent on the suppression/oppression of a whole people.

But anyway, like with Apartheid or countless other long running injustices and conflicts and terror the end can only come about via peace and perhaps reconciliation.

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well whoever raised it as an analogy I think it’s not a good one. A community split on religious sect grounds, one half wanting to join another country and unite an island/Ireland, the other half wanting to stay part of big Island. The strife was mostly between the members of the NI community, with bad acts carried out by 3 sides, IRA, UDF and the police/army. No one was intent on the elimination of a nation, no one was intent on the suppression/oppression of a whole people.

But anyway, like with Apartheid or countless other long running injustices and conflicts and terror the end can only come about via peace and perhaps reconciliation.

Our tumblerseven friend raised it, suggesting its what the UK might do to the IRA and catholics in similar circumstances. I was pointing out he was wrong.

The protestant side of the invented Northern Ireland (invented by the big island) were very much intent on the oppression of all the catholics. The creation of the place was to preserve that very model.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

more specifically targeted actions what exactly does this mean?

using international support what exactly does this mean.

 targeted hit squads and special forces this is nonsense

More specifically targeted actions means stuff like identifying and ending the supply of rockets and guns to Hamas. Of eliminating at least part of that chain. It means going after the leaders of Hamas, most of whom are not in the West Bank. Not easy, I grant you. 
International support means nations who instinctively side with Hamas and/or Palestine being persuaded by seeing Israel’s restraint to cease that support for Hamas and instead to accept that Hamas has to go. Those nations have much more of an “in” to deal with Hamas than anyone else does.

Israel has and does use hit squads to kill targets. Stepping that up is preferable to mass bombing of civilians.

And there is precedent for it working, in India when subjected to a Pakistan funded and planned terror attack.

[Tumblerseven]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Our tumblerseven friend raised it, suggesting its what the UK might do to the IRA and catholics in similar circumstances. I was pointing out he was wrong.

The protestant side of the invented Northern Ireland (invented by the big island) were very much intent on the oppression of all the catholics. The creation of the place was to preserve that very model.

I think people are intentionally being obtuse with the point i was trying to make and pretend its invalid.

So my point was take any terroristic organization you prefer they have a country near your borders and they kill 4000 people in London. The suggestion that anyone would like to talk or negotiate after that event is ludicrous.

[meregreen]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Our tumblerseven friend raised it, suggesting its what the UK might do to the IRA and catholics in similar circumstances. I was pointing out he was wrong.

The protestant side of the invented Northern Ireland (invented by the big island) were very much intent on the oppression of all the catholics. The creation of the place was to preserve that very model.

 

 

 

You need to do a little more research. Britain was prepared for the whole of Ireland to move towards Independence. It was the threat of armed resistance by Carters loyalists that led to the Protestant majority in Ulster breaking from that. None of which has any relevance to Palestine at all.

[HeyAnty]

58 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

No you’re right, I think the only way to stop pub bombings and Enniskillen and Omagh and Manchester would be to kettle every catholic family in to Derry and then bomb the **** out of the place. 

It’s the only possible solution. You’ve convinced me.

 

Dont forget, tell families you’re going to do it and to flee the city via the one route.  Then pick them off as they leave.

[blandy]

Here’s an article about how the approach I mentioned above has worked

Quote

“I myself pressed at that time for immediate visible retaliation” against the jihadist bases or against Pakistani military intelligence, “which was clearly complicit,” Menon wrote. “To have done so would have been emotionally satisfying and gone some way toward erasing the shame of the incompetence that India’s police and security agencies displayed.”

He continued, “But on sober reflection and in hindsight, I now believe that the decision not to retaliate militarily and to concentrate on diplomatic, covert and other means was the right one for that time and place.”

Chief among the reasons, Menon explained, was that any military response would have quickly obscured just how outrageous and terrible the raid on Indian civilians and tourists was; “the fact of a terrorist attack from Pakistan on India with official involvement on the Pakistan side” would have been lost. Once India retaliated, the world would immediately have had what Menon called a “ho-hum reaction.” Just another Pakistani-Indian dust-up — nothing unusual here.

Moreover, Menon wrote, “an Indian attack on Pakistan would have united Pakistan behind the Pakistan Army, which was in increasing domestic disrepute,”…. a war itself, was exactly what the Pakistan Army wanted to buttress its internal position.”

….“by not attacking Pakistan, India was free to pursue all legal and covert means to achieve its goals of bringing the perpetrators to justice, uniting the international community to force consequences on Pakistan for its behavior and to strengthen the likelihood that such an attack would not take place again.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2023/10/30/please_israel_dont_get_lost_in_hamas_tunnels_610926.html

[HeyAnty]

8 minutes ago, meregreen said:

You need to do a little more research. Britain was prepared for the whole of Ireland to move towards Independence. It was the threat of armed resistance by Carters loyalists that led to the Protestant majority in Ulster breaking from that. None of which has any relevance to Palestine at all.

100% rubbish 

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, meregreen said:

You need to do a little more research. Britain was prepared for the whole of Ireland to move towards Independence. It was the threat of armed resistance by Carters loyalists that led to the Protestant majority in Ulster breaking from that. None of which has any relevance to Palestine at all.

Yep, Westminster was helpless in this. And again, it wasn’t me that brought it up and its not me that keeps bringing it up.

[Tumblerseven]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

Here’s an article about how the approach I mentioned above has worked

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2023/10/30/please_israel_dont_get_lost_in_hamas_tunnels_610926.html

 So i dont think this is comparable situation.

Two strong militarily and nuclear countries with allies who prepare to go to war for them. Is not comparable to Gaza-israel 2023 conflict.

As i read in the article that Pakistan government was calmer civilian population not army and India liked that if they go to war the calm Pakistan government is gone and you have a war on your hands. Its not comparable because Palestinians want from river to the see fantasy already.

In India and Pakistan conflict i woud say its not worth it. And it was good decision but its not comparable to this.

[meregreen]

22 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

100% rubbish 

The original parliamentary 1921 act contained provisions for the two territories to be reunited. It was the threat of civil war and the refusal of the Protestant majority In Ulster to accept unification that led to the rather sad division we have now. But I still say, the British Parliament was not averse to a United Ireland. 

 

[El Segundo]

1 hour ago, Tumblerseven said:

Yes i think if you are occupied you can fight against occupiers military infrastructure and soldiers. There are other fighting methods besides violence. I think its very clearl that palestine didint apply seriously any other method only violence.

I think crazy radical zionist jewish settlers in west back is occupying force and should be forcefully kicked out ASAP.

I dont think israel as a whole is occupying force because i dont think there was a country before israel in there. I can understand if people say there were palestinian villages and their land was occupied but im not living in fantasy land and i understand how countries are born and i understand that if you not prepared to build a country someone else will.

Do you think Palestine population support Hamas? if no what are you basing that opinion on?

 Ok fair points but how would you propose the West Bank Radicals should be "forcefully kicked out" if violence is not an acceptable method? And by whom? 

I guess you would suggest discourse and diplomacy - but what confidence should the Palestinians put in attempting a solution through discourse and diplomacy when the great powers, including the UN have demonstrated a massive degree of untrustworthiness towards them?   

What percentage chance would you give the Palestinians of getting a fair hearing and outcome?  What percentage chance would you give of Israel complying with any outcome that reverted land back to Palestinians? 

There may not have been a Palestinian State per se, but other parts of the Arab World "liberated" from the Ottoman occupation were granted the right to self governance in line with the League of Nations charter.  I'm sure the existing population would have been more than happy to "build a country" if they had been allowed to.

I can't speak for the Palestinian people re Hamas. I have no idea how many of them would support Hamas or any other violent opposition to what they see as occupation. I suspect that a significant number of them may do, given they have been treated worse than shit for so long now that it must have given rise to a massive degree of anger and resentment, which has to find an outlet at some point.  I also suspect a fair number of them don't simply because they know that anything Hamas do will be returned with massive and indiscriminate interest by Israel.  

[chrisp65]

54 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

I think people are intentionally being obtuse with the point i was trying to make and pretend its invalid.

So my point was take any terroristic organization you prefer they have a country near your borders and they kill 4000 people in London. The suggestion that anyone would like to talk or negotiate after that event is ludicrous.

It’s not deliberately obtuse, it’s impossible to find the exact same circumstances with the same numbers of dead.

But its comparable, please don’t take this as meaning to down play the death and kidnap that Hamas have undertaken, but events like The Hyde Park bombing where the cavalry were en route to changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. Four soldiers and seven cavalry horses were killed. The effect of that on the psyche of the nation was massive. At Enniskillen, 12 people were murdered by an IRA bomb at a Remembrance Day service. Again, the impact on that, the symbolism of it, was massive.

But at no point was the solution ever touted that bombing catholic families in Dublin might solve it, because frankly it so obviously wouldn’t.

But even if there was a situation where the UK launched a war against say, France. I just cannot see how 3 or 4 weeks of bombing French housing estates and schools and hospitals would be a solution anybody would think would sort it out. Israel has access to special services and to drones and to satellites and guided munitions, they should be terrorising people that work directly for Hamas. Let every person that represents Hamas know they are being hunted and executed. Make a big point of how specific the assassinations are and that they will continue for years with no hiding place, the modern day equivalent of the Nazi hunters but with justice dispensed at the time of capture. You **** about, you find out. Make Hamas impossible for anyone but the suicidal.

The orphan children of Gaza will be terrorising Israel in 10 years time. The children of the kidnapped will grow up to be Israeli army officers and politicians intent on keeping Gaza impoverished and uneducated. Unless the talking begins.

 

[HeyAnty]

43 minutes ago, meregreen said:

The original parliamentary 1921 act contained provisions for the two territories to be reunited. It was the threat of civil war and the refusal of the Protestant majority In Ulster to accept unification that led to the rather sad division we have now. But I still say, the British Parliament was not averse to a United Ireland. 

 

In fairness its a good argument to have, i was probably wrong in in saying 100% rubbish regards British Parliament but id def argue 80% they weren’t.  For a new thread this discussion