The party says the bill will enable a Labour government to establish a UK electricity system fully based on clean power by 2030, with the largest expansion of renewable power in Britain’s history, and establish “GB Energy”, a publicly owned energy company announced by Keir Starmer last year.
Labour sources have suggested the party would aim to include the act in the king’s speech so it could become law soon after a general election win. One source said the act showcased “modern public ownership, working with the private sector without the need to nationalise”...
Out of interest, other than creating some quangos and spraying lots of money around, how exactly are they planning to do this?
We currently have lots of green power when the wind blows, and not much when it doesn't, especially if this coincides with it also being dark. This gap mostly gets filled in with gas, for which we barely have enough generating capacity (we were lucky last winter was mild, and we've even less coal capacity available for last resort action this winter).
Grid scale battery storage still seems to be too expensive to make more than marginal differences, and we don't yet seem to have found a way to make the wind blow at convenient times, or arrange for it not to be dark during the times of peak winter electrical demand.
Building more renewables is all well and good, but we're already curtailing their output half the time because we've got too much power relative to demand. Build lots more and the annual useful amount of electricity generated per turbine will drop as curtailment rates rise. This will mean someone somewhere (guess what, either taxpayers or consumers) paying out lots of money for turbines which generate very little as they are only useful in marginal (low but not zero wind) conditions. Meanwhile, I still don't see how that gets us away from burning lots of gas when the wind drops. Until the intermittency problem is solved (i.e. batteries become very cheap), the grid will have to stay gas based, not "clean energy" based.
If they do go wild overbuilding turbines there is of course a potential bonanza for anyone with an industrial use for vast amounts of almost free electricity supplied at random times and durations, but I'm struggling to think of good applications in a UK context (in the middle east, desalination plants would be an obvious one - make your plant 10x the size required and have good storage capacity for your clean water, run it in bursts to coincide with times of excess electricity supply, and bingo, no energy cost for you plant).
As currently envisaged, it wouldn't cur bills, just cement them at their high level, because the renewables providers would all need to be paid at a far higher level than gas prices are likely to return to when sanity comes back into fashion.
I would be interested in seeing whether they have plans to get tidal over the line though. That's an exciting renewable. Wind and Solar can piss off.
Missing the fact that if you don't look at crackpot conspiracy theorists that NEW wind was cheaper than gas even before the price of gas surged to it's peaks.
Of course if you only look at old wind from when the technology was nascent and being developed, it's a different matter.
I'd rather be able to charge my car cheaply from wind that has effectively zero input cost.
Except, every wind turbine (and solar panel) currently producing will be scrap metal in 30 years. It all has to be built again from the ground up. With new contracts being negotiated.
I'd rather be able to charge my car cheaply from a 3,200 MW tidal plant that will last a minimum of 120 years (and probably far longer) that has effectively zero input cost. And, delivering itself to your door twice a day, for free, is as reliable as nuclear but for a fraction of the cost. And if you build several of them around the coast, with guarnateed baseload because of the differing times of high tide.
Nuclear-scale tidal power stations will get built.
Green NIMBYism will prevent that - they will require 20 years of planning, while will cost hundreds of millions - just for the enquiry.
Then you will find that the price of building (essentially) a chunk of beach will be 50 times what it costs to build artificial reefs and beaches elsewhere. Because Big Government Project.
Planning consent for Swansea took 2 years, not 20. Tidal gets built becore nuclear even has its planning boots on.
It had over 80% local support through that planning process.
And it is a private enterprise project, not a Big Government Project. Private enterprise built small towns on stilts in the middle of the North Sea. Left to Big Government, the oil there would stil be under the seabed.
It won't, because the anti-progress NIMBYs and BANANAs will jump on the project.
I am tidal-sceptical, but not enough to want to stop a project if it gets the go-ahead. Sadly, there are lots of people who are anti-progress. Like the people who were against HS2....
Tidal had and has massive support. And more to the point it has a practical purpose - unlike the HS2 white elephant. Tidal is progress and tomorrow's technology. HS2 was last centuries' solution to last centuries' problems.
(Sighs theatrically)
HS2 was not a white elephant. There was a need for it - and before you say "Home working!!!", look at how rail travel has recovered since Covid. whilst commuter traffic is down somewhat (though not precipitously), long-distance travel is up. And HS2 was meant to be long-distance travel...
And the idea that increasing rail travel is not a 'practical purpose' is quite staggering. As is the idea that high-speed rail is not 'progress' is quite amusing. I might as well point at Eling tide mill and say tidal turbines are medieval tech!
I want tidal power. But expect the very same arguments used against HS2 to be used against project you like - or to be used to increase the costs past viability.
The need for HS2 doesn't remotely cover the exorbitant cost. Even the fantasy cost benefit analysis had great difficulty justifying it, but now the costs have spiralled beyond all reason the best thing to do is ditch it and spend on transport projects with much better business cases, like road projects, Crossrail 2, West London Orbital Rail and the Bakerloo line extension.
As others point out, those are all rather London-focussed.
And the Bakerloo line extension shows the problem well. Nearly ten years ago, that was specced out at £2-3 billion for 7.5 km. Three years later, it was £4.7bn to £7.9bn. HS2 phase 1 is over 200km.
If we take the BLE cost at a low £4 billion and length at 8km, then that is £500 million per km. It makes HS2 look cheap...
Yes a line that is built entirely underground and involves building from scratch or substantially remodelling five underground stations is going to cost a fair amount of money. It will also unlock tens of thousands of new homes - right now there are loads of building opportunities that are blocked until the line is built because there is no transport capacity down the Old Kent Road - and vastly improve transport links in an area with poor connectivity. The BLE would be a no brainier in any country serious about solving its housing and infrastructure deficits.
If that is the primary argument, it does imply subsidising each new house/flat to the tune of something of the order of 100K of public moneys (assuming no cockup) - 4x10e9 divided by say 4x10e4 houses.
Though that could be adjusted down by including existiung houses. I wasn't aware that the area was empty at present, Betjeman's Metroland style?
Yet another boost to the London houysing market, though, is hardly good public policy.
London is where housing demand furthest outstrips supply, hence its high house prices. Plus Londoners are less NIMBY than people elsewhere, so it's a good place to build housing. The area around the Old Kent Road between Elephant and New Cross has the worst transport links of anywhere that close to Central London. And there are a load of brownfield sites available there to build housing. There is a whole raft of projects ready to go that simply won't be allowed to be built until the transport infrastructure is provided. Yet no money is forthcoming. This is why we never solve any of our problems.
That makes sense, re the brownfields for instance. But the beneficiaries are much more closely identifiable. The developers, and thje people already in the area who own houses which hugely increase in value. So charge the developers and increase council tax (and do a revaluation every 7 years, with more higher rate bands).
That's on a strict financial analysis, though, which is part of the wider problem! Also assuming no central gmt money, which would be now politically explosive after the way people from Berwick to Devon have been treated, above all in the last week.
Yes the way to fund these projects is to claw back some of the property price uplift, alongside some central govt funding. I should express an interest here as I live 15 minutes from New Cross Gate. I'd be happy to pay more council tax to get this line built - I wouldn't use it that much myself but it fills in an important gap in SE London's transport infrastructure and is really helpful in addressing the housing shortage, which is most acute in London.
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Yes, I think that's right. We don't need to take sides to say that the targeting of civilians is barbaric. I certainly don't subscribe to The Kitchen Cabinet's view that we must therefore be 100% pro-Israel as a sort of reflex action - some of the ongoing policies of Netanyahu's government have been indefensible and will have strengthened support for Hamas. But what Hamas is doing no is an own goal for Palestinians in the medium term, however they much they may enjoy the temporary success.
Hello Nick, do you agree with Corbyn's response to the cameras yesterday when asked about what was happening?
‘Only Good News Today’ — Russia’s Propagandists Delight as Israelis Die
https://cepa.org/article/only-good-news-today-russias-propagandists-delight-as-israelis-die/ ...Sergey Mardan, one of Russia’s best-known propagandists and host of the eponymous show on the state channel Solovyov Live, wrote on his Telegram channel that he was happy for the Russians who moved to Israel because they didn’t want to live in a country that is at war with its neighbors.
He added, “This mess is beneficial for Russia, because the globalist toad will be distracted from Ukraine and will get busy trying to put out the eternal Middle Eastern fire.” Mardan explained, “Iran is our real military ally. Israel is an ally of the United States. Therefore, choosing a side is easy!”
During his show, “Mardan,” the host made a bizarre comparison between Palestine and Russia, claiming that Russia “has been occupied since 1991” and is only now seeking to correct the situation. Russian propagandists frequently claim that Ukraine is “occupying” Russian lands, which Russia is fighting to reclaim.
Head of RT, Margarita Simonyan, wrote on her X/Twitter account, “The country that is not at war with its neighbors is again at war with its neighbors. We await the exodus of Russian pacifists. Then again, we won’t hold our breath.”
Host of the show “Morning Z” on Solovyov Live, Boris Yakemenko, blamed the violence on gender issues (presumably a reference to LGBT+ debates in the West), stating, “What is happening today in different corners of the world shows that the world has come to a dangerous point, beyond which lies the new world. Crossing into it will be preceded by horrendous casualties, because of a feeling of total injustice, insanity, a total lack of understanding of what is happening, with all of these genders, with all of these strange phenomena!” ..
Of course the distraction argument cuts both ways
Maybe we should finish off the Black Sea Fleet or give Ukraine 100 F16s
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
From Wikipedia:
"A poll carried out in 2011 by the Hebrew University indicated that a growing number of Palestinians and Israelis supported a settlement to the conflict based on the Parameters. The poll found that 58% of Israelis and 50% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution based on the Clinton Parameters, compared with 47% of Israelis and 39% of Palestinians in 2003, the first year the poll was carried out."
If only there had been the political will, this would seem to indicate that peace between Israel and Palestine could have been achieved.
It foundered on Arafat insisting on the Right of Return. But the narrative, as with our young blade @148grss, is that Israel is the one which has never offered the Palestinians anything and hence we should boycott them or, as he acknowledges, resort to violence because peaceful protest has been made impossible. Of all the posters on PB I hadn't necessarily expected @148grss to be a strong advocate of violence against civilians.
Again - I did not say that anyone should resort to violence if peaceful solutions are unavailable - only that people will resort to violence if they believe that peaceful solutions won't work. These are two different statements, and I think it is insincere of you to be conflating them.
Or, like the PLO spokesperson here, are they just making it clear that it is the actions of recent Israeli governments that have made peaceful solutions impossible and therefore left a vacuum where people feel the only solution is violence:
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
From Wikipedia:
"A poll carried out in 2011 by the Hebrew University indicated that a growing number of Palestinians and Israelis supported a settlement to the conflict based on the Parameters. The poll found that 58% of Israelis and 50% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution based on the Clinton Parameters, compared with 47% of Israelis and 39% of Palestinians in 2003, the first year the poll was carried out."
If only there had been the political will, this would seem to indicate that peace between Israel and Palestine could have been achieved.
It foundered on Arafat insisting on the Right of Return. But the narrative, as with our young blade @148grss, is that Israel is the one which has never offered the Palestinians anything and hence we should boycott them or, as he acknowledges, resort to violence because peaceful protest has been made impossible. Of all the posters on PB I hadn't necessarily expected @148grss to be a strong advocate of violence against civilians.
You could say with equal justification that it foundered on Barak's refusal to accept any right of return whatsoever. Surely it could have been possible to negotiate some limited right of return with grudging acceptance by both sides.
I think he was concerned about the principle of right of return. Because how would you choose which were allowed to return once you agreed that there was a fundamental right to return. It would have meant, would currently mean potentially millions of previously displaced people "returning" to the homeland of their parents/grandparents.
I imagine was the thinking.
The right of return would have meant that Israel would no longer have been a homeland for Jews, which is the whole point of it. And the Arabs were not offering a right of return to Jews to the homes they had been expelled from, places they had lived in for thousands of years in some cases, nor any compensation.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
Yes, its why the whole net zero programme is wrong for the UK, its not our priority. We will not have any major crisis because our temperatures will simply become like central France. The Severn will be the new Garonne.
Our priorities should be eliminating plastics, energy security, protecting bio diversity and future proofing infrastructure.
It's sea level that is our biggest problem. London could probably withstand a rise of up to 5m or so, but would then be lost. In a worst-case scenario, this level could be reached by around the year 2150. Of course an awful lot of low-lying farmland would also be lost.
Which goes back to my point on future proofing
Large chunks of the Netherlands are below sea level, we will need to adopt similar flood defences.
As I understand it, 5m is a critical level for London because this is the point at which you'd have to start actually pumping the Thames up to the level of the sea, which is unlikely to be feasible.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
It's ok I understand your thinking. You believe the Palestinians had no alternative but to choose violence. It is a legitimate point of view. It is how violence is justified in many of the places it occurs.
I think many people believe that Palestinians have no alternative but to use violence. My personal view is that the Palestinians likely have no options at all - violence won't free them and the international community do not seem to care. I think the writing has been on the wall for a while and that the Israeli government will just kill everyone in the Gaza Strip who cannot run away and annex the entire thing.
Another illustration of why this is existential for Israel. From the Guardian
“[The general] said the IDF military response had two primary objectives in its response to the Hamas attack. “At the end of this war, Hamas will no longer have any military capabilities to threaten Israeli civilians … Hamas will not be able to govern the Gaza Strip.” The Israeli military has called up around 100,000 reservists.”
These are the obvious aims we discussed last night. Problem is: how on earth do you achieve them? Without slaughtering tens of thousands of Gazans?
Even worse, how do you keep Gaza under such a tight grip it cannot repeat October 7?
You can’t. So Israel is left with two options: push everyone in Gaza into Egypt, which is unfeasible, or accept the existence of Gaza as it is, which is intolerable
Can't they do basically the previous state of affairs only with more guys on and near the border? Hamas managed to break through their defences this time but it seems like the Israelis weren't really prepared for an attack like that, so what they can do now is prepare for an attack like that.
Yeah, always prepare for the last war. That definitely works out
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
From Wikipedia:
"A poll carried out in 2011 by the Hebrew University indicated that a growing number of Palestinians and Israelis supported a settlement to the conflict based on the Parameters. The poll found that 58% of Israelis and 50% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution based on the Clinton Parameters, compared with 47% of Israelis and 39% of Palestinians in 2003, the first year the poll was carried out."
If only there had been the political will, this would seem to indicate that peace between Israel and Palestine could have been achieved.
It foundered on Arafat insisting on the Right of Return. But the narrative, as with our young blade @148grss, is that Israel is the one which has never offered the Palestinians anything and hence we should boycott them or, as he acknowledges, resort to violence because peaceful protest has been made impossible. Of all the posters on PB I hadn't necessarily expected @148grss to be a strong advocate of violence against civilians.
Again - I did not say that anyone should resort to violence if peaceful solutions are unavailable - only that people will resort to violence if they believe that peaceful solutions won't work. These are two different statements, and I think it is insincere of you to be conflating them.
Or, like the PLO spokesperson here, are they just making it clear that it is the actions of recent Israeli governments that have made peaceful solutions impossible and therefore left a vacuum where people feel the only solution is violence:
You said peaceful protest was impossible. Who decided that it was impossible? You did. If you think that peaceful protest is impossible then you have left yourself with violence as the only alternative and hence your position is advocating violence to address the situation.
As I said, fair enough. If that is your position you wouldn't be alone in adopting it.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
Hamas crossings are in their hundreds versus tens of thousands of IDF with tanks. They will eventually be wiped out its only the media adding to the immediacy of a crisis.
For Israel the big question is what next ? Hamas have already set a series traps for the Israelis to walk in to - bombing civilian Gaza, inciting the arab world to anger etc. Israel needs to find a way to avoid this. Since the prime beneficiary of this will be Iran, Israel should avoid Gaza fight and take its revenge on the Tehran regime.
Therefore
1. kick Hamas out of Israel and reseal the border. 2 Broker a deal with the Saudis whereby Israel says no more bombing of Gaza if Saudi and Israel can have normal relations 3. Transfer all Palestinian prisoners to Saudi so Hamas have nothing to negotiate for 4. Concentrate on neutering Iranian regime 5 Take out Irans nuclear programme
Iran is a state of 80 million, but ethnic persians are only about 55% of the population there are a lot of disaffected minorities. The regime survives by hard force but even the Persians are fed up with the clerics. Iran is ripe for a regime change which will then cut the funding and arming of the extremists surrounding Israel.
Better to aim for the kingpins than kill a few footsoldiers in Gaza
One of the more interesting facets (so far) has been the lack of outpouring in Arab nations in support of Hamas. Yes, there have been demonstrations in Jordan, Turkey etc and the shooting in Alexandria but, given the scale of the attack and its consequences, you would have expected far more.
Apart from what that says about whether these demonstrations are truly spontaneous or are orchestrated, I think it is becoming more and more obvious that Hamas has had a big tactical victory but this will be a massive strategic disaster on several fronts.
Firstly, for the Middle Eastern regimes such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, this is a massive blow. Not necessarily because of the peace accords but because what Hamas has done is so spectacular, it has put their carefully laid out long-term strategic plans in jeopardy. Does Dubai look such a great long-term investment after this? Do you want Saudis running your sports leagues and clubs? The western world - and most of the investment still comes from there with China looking an uncertain bet more and more - counts. Plus, without going Jeremy Corbyn, there are a lot of influential links between Israel and its citizens and many decision makers.
Secondly, this will massively undercut the apologists for the Palestinians in the West. Look at the reaction to Corbyn's mealy-mouthed response or the fringe events at the Labour party conference. The pictures are so graphic, anything less than 100% support for Israel will be seen as appeasement. So now Starmer is likely to have to reopen action against those who are pro-Palestine. In the States, the Squad - rightfully - is coming under major attack for their calls for a ceasefire. I see Schumer laid into the Chinese for their response this morning and, given Biden is under attack not just for the unfreezing of $6 billion of assets to Iran but also the Robert Malley affair (look it up), chances are he feels he needs to show his toughness on the issue.
Thirdly, and it goes without saying and has been emphasised time and time again, Israel will now destroy them and, electorally, has to pound them into the ground.
If you want to look at how quickly the penny is dropping, look at Iran's statements this morning. They can't get away enough from saying they had nothing to do with the attack after being reticent to deny it on Saturday. They must be sh1t scared they have gone too far.
Yes no doubt Hamas has put the cat among the pigeons and is hoping Israel will over react which with Netanyehu is more than possible.
But if Israel steps back and decides not to be channelled down Hamas` path it will regain control of the situation and can then sort out Iran.
Do we think Netanyahu is the person to step back? He will believe, surely, that his failure over security can be expunged by the severity of his response. Do we really think that he will take this time to reflect on the strategic benefits of stepping back?
No he's a twat.
But currently hes in the position where he needs to take the views of others ( the opposition and the US ) on board.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
Hamas crossings are in their hundreds versus tens of thousands of IDF with tanks. They will eventually be wiped out its only the media adding to the immediacy of a crisis.
For Israel the big question is what next ? Hamas have already set a series traps for the Israelis to walk in to - bombing civilian Gaza, inciting the arab world to anger etc. Israel needs to find a way to avoid this. Since the prime beneficiary of this will be Iran, Israel should avoid Gaza fight and take its revenge on the Tehran regime.
Therefore
1. kick Hamas out of Israel and reseal the border. 2 Broker a deal with the Saudis whereby Israel says no more bombing of Gaza if Saudi and Israel can have normal relations 3. Transfer all Palestinian prisoners to Saudi so Hamas have nothing to negotiate for 4. Concentrate on neutering Iranian regime 5 Take out Irans nuclear programme
Iran is a state of 80 million, but ethnic persians are only about 55% of the population there are a lot of disaffected minorities. The regime survives by hard force but even the Persians are fed up with the clerics. Iran is ripe for a regime change which will then cut the funding and arming of the extremists surrounding Israel.
Better to aim for the kingpins than kill a few footsoldiers in Gaza
One of the more interesting facets (so far) has been the lack of outpouring in Arab nations in support of Hamas. Yes, there have been demonstrations in Jordan, Turkey etc and the shooting in Alexandria but, given the scale of the attack and its consequences, you would have expected far more.
Apart from what that says about whether these demonstrations are truly spontaneous or are orchestrated, I think it is becoming more and more obvious that Hamas has had a big tactical victory but this will be a massive strategic disaster on several fronts.
Firstly, for the Middle Eastern regimes such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, this is a massive blow. Not necessarily because of the peace accords but because what Hamas has done is so spectacular, it has put their carefully laid out long-term strategic plans in jeopardy. Does Dubai look such a great long-term investment after this? Do you want Saudis running your sports leagues and clubs? The western world - and most of the investment still comes from there with China looking an uncertain bet more and more - counts. Plus, without going Jeremy Corbyn, there are a lot of influential links between Israel and its citizens and many decision makers.
Secondly, this will massively undercut the apologists for the Palestinians in the West. Look at the reaction to Corbyn's mealy-mouthed response or the fringe events at the Labour party conference. The pictures are so graphic, anything less than 100% support for Israel will be seen as appeasement. So now Starmer is likely to have to reopen action against those who are pro-Palestine. In the States, the Squad - rightfully - is coming under major attack for their calls for a ceasefire. I see Schumer laid into the Chinese for their response this morning and, given Biden is under attack not just for the unfreezing of $6 billion of assets to Iran but also the Robert Malley affair (look it up), chances are he feels he needs to show his toughness on the issue.
Thirdly, and it goes without saying and has been emphasised time and time again, Israel will now destroy them and, electorally, has to pound them into the ground.
If you want to look at how quickly the penny is dropping, look at Iran's statements this morning. They can't get away enough from saying they had nothing to do with the attack after being reticent to deny it on Saturday. They must be sh1t scared they have gone too far.
Yes no doubt Hamas has put the cat among the pigeons and is hoping Israel will over react which with Netanyehu is more than possible.
But if Israel steps back and decides not to be channelled down Hamas` path it will regain control of the situation and can then sort out Iran.
Do we think Netanyahu is the person to step back? He will believe, surely, that his failure over security can be expunged by the severity of his response. Do we really think that he will take this time to reflect on the strategic benefits of stepping back?
No he's a twat.
But currently hes in the position where he needs to take the views of others ( the opposition and the US ) on board.
No Israeli PM could “step back” right now. Its ludicrous. For all they know Hamas has even bigger and more nefarious plans ready to run
Plus the thirst for revenge is intense and can’t be ignored. There won’t be any stepping back, whoever is Israeli PM (and I suspect Netanyahu will be toppled by all this, in time)
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Yes, I think that's right. We don't need to take sides to say that the targeting of civilians is barbaric. I certainly don't subscribe to The Kitchen Cabinet's view that we must therefore be 100% pro-Israel as a sort of reflex action - some of the ongoing policies of Netanyahu's government have been indefensible and will have strengthened support for Hamas. But what Hamas is doing no is an own goal for Palestinians in the medium term, however they much they may enjoy the temporary success.
In what way is it an own goal? What is this nirvana that they could have expected from Israel by waiting patiently for the next several decades while suffering the daily indignities of their confinement?
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
That’s true. But, equally, Israelis can justifiably say “we are the only small Jewish democracy entirely surrounded by larger Arab states. We have to fight just to stay alive”
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
Another illustration of why this is existential for Israel. From the Guardian
“[The general] said the IDF military response had two primary objectives in its response to the Hamas attack. “At the end of this war, Hamas will no longer have any military capabilities to threaten Israeli civilians … Hamas will not be able to govern the Gaza Strip.” The Israeli military has called up around 100,000 reservists.”
These are the obvious aims we discussed last night. Problem is: how on earth do you achieve them? Without slaughtering tens of thousands of Gazans?
Even worse, how do you keep Gaza under such a tight grip it cannot repeat October 7?
You can’t. So Israel is left with two options: push everyone in Gaza into Egypt, which is unfeasible, or accept the existence of Gaza as it is, which is intolerable
Can't they do basically the previous state of affairs only with more guys on and near the border? Hamas managed to break through their defences this time but it seems like the Israelis weren't really prepared for an attack like that, so what they can do now is prepare for an attack like that.
Yeah, always prepare for the last war. That definitely works out
*waves from the Maginot Line*
It's not the last war, it's the same war that's been going on for decades.
Security against a weaker adversary is mostly "try to stop them attacking you, if they succeed then block that avenue so they can't do it again". You obviously try to anticipate things that haven't been tried yet but you don't always succeed. They've been doing this ever since 1967, sometimes failing and then reacting. Lots of people got killed by rocket attacks, they built defences against rocket attacks.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
So with the Middle East on the boil, nobody will be following the Labour conference.
Does this help or hinder SKS ?
My view is hinder, but that's because usually no one pays any attention to the opposition and Conference is an opportunity to get some coverage. With the Conservative Conference having been a bit of a disaster, Labour has the chance for the electorate to compare and contrast. I think Starmer would look very favourable at Conference compared to Sunak.
That said, Labour might be getting some unwanted attention at their conference because of the Middle East crisis rather than in spite of it. There are plenty of cranks at a loose end that are all too accessible to the media, willing to give their half-baked takes on evil Israeli Imperialists and noble Palestinian Freedom Fighters. I understand one Jeremy Corbyn has been commenting (though I haven't seen the content so can't comment on his words), and anti-Israeli comments, perhaps verging on the antisemitic, are aired within the Conference I don't think you'll need AI to splice together clips of Starmer swearing his head off because we'll be able to hear it in Liverpool.
Yes, its why the whole net zero programme is wrong for the UK, its not our priority. We will not have any major crisis because our temperatures will simply become like central France. The Severn will be the new Garonne.
Our priorities should be eliminating plastics, energy security, protecting bio diversity and future proofing infrastructure.
Britain imports a huge proportion of its food. One of the major risks from climate change is disrupting global agriculture. If the world moves into a food deficit, and some food-exporting nations ban exports to prevent their own poor being priced out of food, then Britain is in a very vulnerable position.
Currently brits are among the fattest people in the world.
Brits throw away something like 25% of all the food we buy.
The government spends millions trying to slim us down and stop food waste.
We have a long way to go before we hit starvation and the steps before we get there might be good for us.
But, without clear food supplies, you'd get there in 4-6 weeks. And there would probably be social breakdown before then.
However, in reality, in case of shortage, the richer countries would just buy-out everyone else and the economics would switch land-use domestically too, although that'd take effect over a 6-18 month timescale.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
That’s true. But, equally, Israelis can justifiably say “we are the only small Jewish democracy entirely surrounded by larger Arab states. We have to fight just to stay alive”
That was perhaps a position the Israeli state could take 50 years ago. But increasingly the state structures of the surrounding countries have been more pro Israel than their people - as has been mention in an attempt to secure better relationships with the western markets. It's one of the paradoxes of Israel; to protect the "one democracy in the Middle East" it is better (for them) to be surrounded by autocrats who just want to do business rather than democracies governed by the people who have seen their neighbours displaced from their country.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
Hamas crossings are in their hundreds versus tens of thousands of IDF with tanks. They will eventually be wiped out its only the media adding to the immediacy of a crisis.
For Israel the big question is what next ? Hamas have already set a series traps for the Israelis to walk in to - bombing civilian Gaza, inciting the arab world to anger etc. Israel needs to find a way to avoid this. Since the prime beneficiary of this will be Iran, Israel should avoid Gaza fight and take its revenge on the Tehran regime.
Therefore
1. kick Hamas out of Israel and reseal the border. 2 Broker a deal with the Saudis whereby Israel says no more bombing of Gaza if Saudi and Israel can have normal relations 3. Transfer all Palestinian prisoners to Saudi so Hamas have nothing to negotiate for 4. Concentrate on neutering Iranian regime 5 Take out Irans nuclear programme
Iran is a state of 80 million, but ethnic persians are only about 55% of the population there are a lot of disaffected minorities. The regime survives by hard force but even the Persians are fed up with the clerics. Iran is ripe for a regime change which will then cut the funding and arming of the extremists surrounding Israel.
Better to aim for the kingpins than kill a few footsoldiers in Gaza
One of the more interesting facets (so far) has been the lack of outpouring in Arab nations in support of Hamas. Yes, there have been demonstrations in Jordan, Turkey etc and the shooting in Alexandria but, given the scale of the attack and its consequences, you would have expected far more.
Apart from what that says about whether these demonstrations are truly spontaneous or are orchestrated, I think it is becoming more and more obvious that Hamas has had a big tactical victory but this will be a massive strategic disaster on several fronts.
Firstly, for the Middle Eastern regimes such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, this is a massive blow. Not necessarily because of the peace accords but because what Hamas has done is so spectacular, it has put their carefully laid out long-term strategic plans in jeopardy. Does Dubai look such a great long-term investment after this? Do you want Saudis running your sports leagues and clubs? The western world - and most of the investment still comes from there with China looking an uncertain bet more and more - counts. Plus, without going Jeremy Corbyn, there are a lot of influential links between Israel and its citizens and many decision makers.
Secondly, this will massively undercut the apologists for the Palestinians in the West. Look at the reaction to Corbyn's mealy-mouthed response or the fringe events at the Labour party conference. The pictures are so graphic, anything less than 100% support for Israel will be seen as appeasement. So now Starmer is likely to have to reopen action against those who are pro-Palestine. In the States, the Squad - rightfully - is coming under major attack for their calls for a ceasefire. I see Schumer laid into the Chinese for their response this morning and, given Biden is under attack not just for the unfreezing of $6 billion of assets to Iran but also the Robert Malley affair (look it up), chances are he feels he needs to show his toughness on the issue.
Thirdly, and it goes without saying and has been emphasised time and time again, Israel will now destroy them and, electorally, has to pound them into the ground.
If you want to look at how quickly the penny is dropping, look at Iran's statements this morning. They can't get away enough from saying they had nothing to do with the attack after being reticent to deny it on Saturday. They must be sh1t scared they have gone too far.
Yes no doubt Hamas has put the cat among the pigeons and is hoping Israel will over react which with Netanyehu is more than possible.
But if Israel steps back and decides not to be channelled down Hamas` path it will regain control of the situation and can then sort out Iran.
Do we think Netanyahu is the person to step back? He will believe, surely, that his failure over security can be expunged by the severity of his response. Do we really think that he will take this time to reflect on the strategic benefits of stepping back?
No he's a twat.
But currently hes in the position where he needs to take the views of others ( the opposition and the US ) on board.
No Israeli PM could “step back” right now. Its ludicrous. For all they know Hamas has even bigger and more nefarious plans ready to run
Plus the thirst for revenge is intense and can’t be ignored. There won’t be any stepping back, whoever is Israeli PM (and I suspect Netanyahu will be toppled by all this, in time)
Then theyre missing a chance and will simply do what their enemy wants them to.
Killing a handful of Hamas footsoldiers will achieve little, they will be replaced and I cant see Israel really wanting an urban war campaign as its horribly messy and will cost lots of IDF lives.
Hamas want to play asymmetric warfare, Israel needs to avoid the trap and sort out their paymasters. Theres a lot to be gained from it.
Another illustration of why this is existential for Israel. From the Guardian
“[The general] said the IDF military response had two primary objectives in its response to the Hamas attack. “At the end of this war, Hamas will no longer have any military capabilities to threaten Israeli civilians … Hamas will not be able to govern the Gaza Strip.” The Israeli military has called up around 100,000 reservists.”
These are the obvious aims we discussed last night. Problem is: how on earth do you achieve them? Without slaughtering tens of thousands of Gazans?
Even worse, how do you keep Gaza under such a tight grip it cannot repeat October 7?
You can’t. So Israel is left with two options: push everyone in Gaza into Egypt, which is unfeasible, or accept the existence of Gaza as it is, which is intolerable
Can't they do basically the previous state of affairs only with more guys on and near the border? Hamas managed to break through their defences this time but it seems like the Israelis weren't really prepared for an attack like that, so what they can do now is prepare for an attack like that.
Yeah, always prepare for the last war. That definitely works out
*waves from the Maginot Line*
It's not the last war, it's the same war that's been going on for decades.
Security against a weaker adversary is mostly "try to stop them attacking you, if they succeed then block that avenue so they can't do it again". You obviously try to anticipate things that haven't been tried yet but you don't always succeed. They've been doing this ever since 1967, sometimes failing and then reacting. Lots of people got killed by rocket attacks, they built defences against rocket attacks.
Delusional. Israel has to prevent Gaza from EVER menacing and slaying Israelis like it has done in the last 72 hours. That is explicitly what the IDF generals are saying. Everything has changed
Just tightening the border and ramping up surveillance isn’t going to cut it, not this time
The terrible dilemma is: how does Israel do this? How does it change the facts on the ground?
In what way is it an own goal? What is this nirvana that they could have expected from Israel by waiting patiently for the next several decades while suffering the daily indignities of their confinement?
Morning Roger
Difficult time for you right now I'm guessing. What exactly are the Palestinians confined to and where would you like them to be so as to be unconfined?
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
Hamas crossings are in their hundreds versus tens of thousands of IDF with tanks. They will eventually be wiped out its only the media adding to the immediacy of a crisis.
For Israel the big question is what next ? Hamas have already set a series traps for the Israelis to walk in to - bombing civilian Gaza, inciting the arab world to anger etc. Israel needs to find a way to avoid this. Since the prime beneficiary of this will be Iran, Israel should avoid Gaza fight and take its revenge on the Tehran regime.
Therefore
1. kick Hamas out of Israel and reseal the border. 2 Broker a deal with the Saudis whereby Israel says no more bombing of Gaza if Saudi and Israel can have normal relations 3. Transfer all Palestinian prisoners to Saudi so Hamas have nothing to negotiate for 4. Concentrate on neutering Iranian regime 5 Take out Irans nuclear programme
Iran is a state of 80 million, but ethnic persians are only about 55% of the population there are a lot of disaffected minorities. The regime survives by hard force but even the Persians are fed up with the clerics. Iran is ripe for a regime change which will then cut the funding and arming of the extremists surrounding Israel.
Better to aim for the kingpins than kill a few footsoldiers in Gaza
One of the more interesting facets (so far) has been the lack of outpouring in Arab nations in support of Hamas. Yes, there have been demonstrations in Jordan, Turkey etc and the shooting in Alexandria but, given the scale of the attack and its consequences, you would have expected far more.
Apart from what that says about whether these demonstrations are truly spontaneous or are orchestrated, I think it is becoming more and more obvious that Hamas has had a big tactical victory but this will be a massive strategic disaster on several fronts.
Firstly, for the Middle Eastern regimes such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, this is a massive blow. Not necessarily because of the peace accords but because what Hamas has done is so spectacular, it has put their carefully laid out long-term strategic plans in jeopardy. Does Dubai look such a great long-term investment after this? Do you want Saudis running your sports leagues and clubs? The western world - and most of the investment still comes from there with China looking an uncertain bet more and more - counts. Plus, without going Jeremy Corbyn, there are a lot of influential links between Israel and its citizens and many decision makers.
Secondly, this will massively undercut the apologists for the Palestinians in the West. Look at the reaction to Corbyn's mealy-mouthed response or the fringe events at the Labour party conference. The pictures are so graphic, anything less than 100% support for Israel will be seen as appeasement. So now Starmer is likely to have to reopen action against those who are pro-Palestine. In the States, the Squad - rightfully - is coming under major attack for their calls for a ceasefire. I see Schumer laid into the Chinese for their response this morning and, given Biden is under attack not just for the unfreezing of $6 billion of assets to Iran but also the Robert Malley affair (look it up), chances are he feels he needs to show his toughness on the issue.
Thirdly, and it goes without saying and has been emphasised time and time again, Israel will now destroy them and, electorally, has to pound them into the ground.
If you want to look at how quickly the penny is dropping, look at Iran's statements this morning. They can't get away enough from saying they had nothing to do with the attack after being reticent to deny it on Saturday. They must be sh1t scared they have gone too far.
Yes no doubt Hamas has put the cat among the pigeons and is hoping Israel will over react which with Netanyehu is more than possible.
But if Israel steps back and decides not to be channelled down Hamas` path it will regain control of the situation and can then sort out Iran.
Do we think Netanyahu is the person to step back? He will believe, surely, that his failure over security can be expunged by the severity of his response. Do we really think that he will take this time to reflect on the strategic benefits of stepping back?
No he's a twat.
But currently hes in the position where he needs to take the views of others ( the opposition and the US ) on board.
No Israeli PM could “step back” right now. Its ludicrous. For all they know Hamas has even bigger and more nefarious plans ready to run
Plus the thirst for revenge is intense and can’t be ignored. There won’t be any stepping back, whoever is Israeli PM (and I suspect Netanyahu will be toppled by all this, in time)
Then theyre missing a chance and will simply do what their enemy wants them to.
Killing a handful of Hamas footsoldiers will achieve little, they will be replaced and I cant see Israel really wanting an urban war campaign as its horribly messy and will cost lots of IDF lives.
Hamas want to play asymmetric warfare, Israel needs to avoid the trap and sort out their paymasters. Theres a lot to be gained from it.
Maybe, but realpolitik means Israel has to wreak revenge and go for the Hamas network INSIDE Gaza
I imagine they will also be plotting retaliation against Iran
The immediate future for the Middle East is looking quite a lot darker
Adam Broomberg is a Jewish anti-Zionist activist who grew up in South Africa under the apartheid regime. His grandparents entered South Africa after fleeing Europe and became "accepted" in white society. He was educated in a Jewish Zionist school system, and has family members who live in Israel. He discusses his journey to anti-Zionism, his relation to activism, and how he has been called an anti-Semite by many Jewish and non-Jewish people. It was an interesting listen in late September when it released, and I think is an interesting perspective given the international situation now.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
There are doubtless still people in Ireland today who would be hostile towards an English man like myself living among them (not that I've met any), and there were brutal attacks carried out by the IRA, but it was never the policy of the IRA to exterminate every English person living in Ireland, as opposed to decreasing the British government and forcing a British withdrawal.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
Sadly the situation of Gaza is a result of a failure to agree a roadmap to peace and allowing a clearly unsustainable situation to fester for too long. Gaza is not a sustainable polity as currently constituted. My fear is that this unsustainability is now going to resolve itself through violence rather than a long term solution, with all the human cost that entails.
Yes, its why the whole net zero programme is wrong for the UK, its not our priority. We will not have any major crisis because our temperatures will simply become like central France. The Severn will be the new Garonne.
Our priorities should be eliminating plastics, energy security, protecting bio diversity and future proofing infrastructure.
Britain imports a huge proportion of its food. One of the major risks from climate change is disrupting global agriculture. If the world moves into a food deficit, and some food-exporting nations ban exports to prevent their own poor being priced out of food, then Britain is in a very vulnerable position.
Currently brits are among the fattest people in the world.
Brits throw away something like 25% of all the food we buy.
The government spends millions trying to slim us down and stop food waste.
We have a long way to go before we hit starvation and the steps before we get there might be good for us.
But, without clear food supplies, you'd get there in 4-6 weeks. And there would probably be social breakdown before then.
However, in reality, in case of shortage, the richer countries would just buy-out everyone else and the economics would switch land-use domestically too, although that'd take effect over a 6-18 month timescale.
Climate change will take place over 4-6 decades not 4-6 weeks, thats why future proofing should be our aim not net zero, our minuscule efforts will be wiped out by China and India
Yes, its why the whole net zero programme is wrong for the UK, its not our priority. We will not have any major crisis because our temperatures will simply become like central France. The Severn will be the new Garonne.
Our priorities should be eliminating plastics, energy security, protecting bio diversity and future proofing infrastructure.
It's sea level that is our biggest problem. London could probably withstand a rise of up to 5m or so, but would then be lost. In a worst-case scenario, this level could be reached by around the year 2150. Of course an awful lot of low-lying farmland would also be lost.
Which goes back to my point on future proofing
Large chunks of the Netherlands are below sea level, we will need to adopt similar flood defences.
The Netherlands ensures that a good proportion of its population are out of the country at any one time, sending them out all across the world in their camper vans, so reducing the weight on the land and preventing it sinking any further.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
There are doubtless still people in Ireland today who would be hostile towards an English man like myself living among them (not that I've met any), and there were brutal attacks carried out by the IRA, but it was never the policy of the IRA to exterminate every English person living in Ireland, as opposed to decreasing the British government and forcing a British withdrawal.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
Try flying a Union Flag and see how it goes. Personally Ive met loads of them.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What exactly is Israel occupying?
The land that was given to them by European powers that previously had Palestinian people on it. As well as the specific areas over the last decades where you can point to literal individual families who were thrown out of their houses only for settlers to move in.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
I think scale is a thing. I haven't read your link but have no reason to doubt that, despite its seeming Palestinian origin, it is true and that Israeli soldiers shot a two year old Palestinian girl through the head. I mean it sounds unlikely on the face of it but sure let's go with it.
Equally I'm sure there have been Israeli deaths from Palestinian rockets from time to time (quick google 29 in 2022 from knife, bomb, and shooting).
But that is different from the scale of what we saw over the weekend.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants both sides to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
I wonder if this thought expriment could extend to the last time England was actually invaded and conquered?
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What exactly is Israel occupying?
The land that was given to them by European powers that previously had Palestinian people on it. As well as the specific areas over the last decades where you can point to literal individual families who were thrown out of their houses only for settlers to move in.
So you are disputing United Nations Resolution 181? Just want to get an idea of what your terms of discussion are. Just to try to frame it in an acknowledged timeframe, you know five years, 50 years, five thousand years, etc.
Just a reminder that in the future Azerbaijan is likely to try and claim, militarily, Armenian land to connect Azerbaijan to its exclave. This land will include the Armenian-Iranian border, likely drawing Iran into the war.
Israel has a solid security relationship with Azerbaijan (as does Turkey). After recent events, Israel might be very, very happy to offer a lot of military support if Azerbaijan needs it to fend off the Iranians. Not sure if Israel would join the war directly, and use it to lob some missiles at Iranian nuclear sites.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Neither side is good, but it is all shades of grey rather than entirely backing one side over the other.
I read that story and think that the tragedy isn't just a dead 14 year-old, its that she lived in "Jenin refugee camp". She is 14. She is not a refugee. Neither are her parents. Or potentially their parents.
I understand that people were displaced from their homes. But it was not their country - there was no country. The idea that we have these multi-generational camps - awaiting the day when the invading Jew is removed and the Ottoman empire restored - is madness.
The status quo patently does not work. A peace will have to imposed as it cannot be negotiated, and unfortunately that will leave Israel a fortress and Gaza / chunks of the West Bank a ruin. Unless neighbouring arab states intervene and forge a settlement.
Instead of these multi-generational refugee camps, people should be offered to settle in other parts of the former empire, or to become Israeli citizens as several million already have. Israel does terrible things to people in camps like this girl, but it is not seeking death to the arab in the way that Hamas et al seek death to the Jew. Arabs are represented in in the Knesset as equals - an arab is deputy speaker FFS.
We are way past being able to do a two state solution. It will be peace on Israel's terms. Let us hope they don't decide that they need a buffer zone between them and the genocidal neighbours - because if so they will carve it out of Egypy, Jordan and Lebanon. Again.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
There are doubtless still people in Ireland today who would be hostile towards an English man like myself living among them (not that I've met any), and there were brutal attacks carried out by the IRA, but it was never the policy of the IRA to exterminate every English person living in Ireland, as opposed to decreasing the British government and forcing a British withdrawal.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
This just feels like some exceptionalist thinking - I'm pretty sure the IRA wanted every English person out of Ireland and I don't see how that is particularly distinct from Hamas wanting every Israeli Jewish person out of the land they view as theirs. Is your position that because the IRA didn't want to kill every English person on Irish soil that this is somehow distinct? If that was the only option available to them, I think they would have taken it.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
Hamas crossings are in their hundreds versus tens of thousands of IDF with tanks. They will eventually be wiped out its only the media adding to the immediacy of a crisis.
For Israel the big question is what next ? Hamas have already set a series traps for the Israelis to walk in to - bombing civilian Gaza, inciting the arab world to anger etc. Israel needs to find a way to avoid this. Since the prime beneficiary of this will be Iran, Israel should avoid Gaza fight and take its revenge on the Tehran regime.
Therefore
1. kick Hamas out of Israel and reseal the border. 2 Broker a deal with the Saudis whereby Israel says no more bombing of Gaza if Saudi and Israel can have normal relations 3. Transfer all Palestinian prisoners to Saudi so Hamas have nothing to negotiate for 4. Concentrate on neutering Iranian regime 5 Take out Irans nuclear programme
Iran is a state of 80 million, but ethnic persians are only about 55% of the population there are a lot of disaffected minorities. The regime survives by hard force but even the Persians are fed up with the clerics. Iran is ripe for a regime change which will then cut the funding and arming of the extremists surrounding Israel.
Better to aim for the kingpins than kill a few footsoldiers in Gaza
One of the more interesting facets (so far) has been the lack of outpouring in Arab nations in support of Hamas. Yes, there have been demonstrations in Jordan, Turkey etc and the shooting in Alexandria but, given the scale of the attack and its consequences, you would have expected far more.
Apart from what that says about whether these demonstrations are truly spontaneous or are orchestrated, I think it is becoming more and more obvious that Hamas has had a big tactical victory but this will be a massive strategic disaster on several fronts.
Firstly, for the Middle Eastern regimes such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, this is a massive blow. Not necessarily because of the peace accords but because what Hamas has done is so spectacular, it has put their carefully laid out long-term strategic plans in jeopardy. Does Dubai look such a great long-term investment after this? Do you want Saudis running your sports leagues and clubs? The western world - and most of the investment still comes from there with China looking an uncertain bet more and more - counts. Plus, without going Jeremy Corbyn, there are a lot of influential links between Israel and its citizens and many decision makers.
Secondly, this will massively undercut the apologists for the Palestinians in the West. Look at the reaction to Corbyn's mealy-mouthed response or the fringe events at the Labour party conference. The pictures are so graphic, anything less than 100% support for Israel will be seen as appeasement. So now Starmer is likely to have to reopen action against those who are pro-Palestine. In the States, the Squad - rightfully - is coming under major attack for their calls for a ceasefire. I see Schumer laid into the Chinese for their response this morning and, given Biden is under attack not just for the unfreezing of $6 billion of assets to Iran but also the Robert Malley affair (look it up), chances are he feels he needs to show his toughness on the issue.
Thirdly, and it goes without saying and has been emphasised time and time again, Israel will now destroy them and, electorally, has to pound them into the ground.
If you want to look at how quickly the penny is dropping, look at Iran's statements this morning. They can't get away enough from saying they had nothing to do with the attack after being reticent to deny it on Saturday. They must be sh1t scared they have gone too far.
Yes no doubt Hamas has put the cat among the pigeons and is hoping Israel will over react which with Netanyehu is more than possible.
But if Israel steps back and decides not to be channelled down Hamas` path it will regain control of the situation and can then sort out Iran.
Do we think Netanyahu is the person to step back? He will believe, surely, that his failure over security can be expunged by the severity of his response. Do we really think that he will take this time to reflect on the strategic benefits of stepping back?
No he's a twat.
But currently hes in the position where he needs to take the views of others ( the opposition and the US ) on board.
No Israeli PM could “step back” right now. Its ludicrous. For all they know Hamas has even bigger and more nefarious plans ready to run
Plus the thirst for revenge is intense and can’t be ignored. There won’t be any stepping back, whoever is Israeli PM (and I suspect Netanyahu will be toppled by all this, in time)
Then theyre missing a chance and will simply do what their enemy wants them to.
Killing a handful of Hamas footsoldiers will achieve little, they will be replaced and I cant see Israel really wanting an urban war campaign as its horribly messy and will cost lots of IDF lives.
Hamas want to play asymmetric warfare, Israel needs to avoid the trap and sort out their paymasters. Theres a lot to be gained from it.
Maybe, but realpolitik means Israel has to wreak revenge and go for the Hamas network INSIDE Gaza
I imagine they will also be plotting retaliation against Iran
The immediate future for the Middle East is looking quite a lot darker
It currently is reeking revenge with artillery and airstrikes. I can watch it on TV.
But we`re still back to an urban campaign which will be a mess. Set aside the massive civilian casualties on our screens every night but will the IDF want wade through streets with drones, suicide bombers, IEDs and hand to hand combat ? The IDF likes clean campaigns with low casualties thats not whats on offer in Gaza and their military knows it.
As for Hamas they will struggle to clear Gaza bar targetted strikes. There are easier Hamas targets outside Gaza and I anticipate they will go for them
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
Hamas crossings are in their hundreds versus tens of thousands of IDF with tanks. They will eventually be wiped out its only the media adding to the immediacy of a crisis.
For Israel the big question is what next ? Hamas have already set a series traps for the Israelis to walk in to - bombing civilian Gaza, inciting the arab world to anger etc. Israel needs to find a way to avoid this. Since the prime beneficiary of this will be Iran, Israel should avoid Gaza fight and take its revenge on the Tehran regime.
Therefore
1. kick Hamas out of Israel and reseal the border. 2 Broker a deal with the Saudis whereby Israel says no more bombing of Gaza if Saudi and Israel can have normal relations 3. Transfer all Palestinian prisoners to Saudi so Hamas have nothing to negotiate for 4. Concentrate on neutering Iranian regime 5 Take out Irans nuclear programme
Iran is a state of 80 million, but ethnic persians are only about 55% of the population there are a lot of disaffected minorities. The regime survives by hard force but even the Persians are fed up with the clerics. Iran is ripe for a regime change which will then cut the funding and arming of the extremists surrounding Israel.
Better to aim for the kingpins than kill a few footsoldiers in Gaza
One of the more interesting facets (so far) has been the lack of outpouring in Arab nations in support of Hamas. Yes, there have been demonstrations in Jordan, Turkey etc and the shooting in Alexandria but, given the scale of the attack and its consequences, you would have expected far more.
Apart from what that says about whether these demonstrations are truly spontaneous or are orchestrated, I think it is becoming more and more obvious that Hamas has had a big tactical victory but this will be a massive strategic disaster on several fronts.
Firstly, for the Middle Eastern regimes such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, this is a massive blow. Not necessarily because of the peace accords but because what Hamas has done is so spectacular, it has put their carefully laid out long-term strategic plans in jeopardy. Does Dubai look such a great long-term investment after this? Do you want Saudis running your sports leagues and clubs? The western world - and most of the investment still comes from there with China looking an uncertain bet more and more - counts. Plus, without going Jeremy Corbyn, there are a lot of influential links between Israel and its citizens and many decision makers.
Secondly, this will massively undercut the apologists for the Palestinians in the West. Look at the reaction to Corbyn's mealy-mouthed response or the fringe events at the Labour party conference. The pictures are so graphic, anything less than 100% support for Israel will be seen as appeasement. So now Starmer is likely to have to reopen action against those who are pro-Palestine. In the States, the Squad - rightfully - is coming under major attack for their calls for a ceasefire. I see Schumer laid into the Chinese for their response this morning and, given Biden is under attack not just for the unfreezing of $6 billion of assets to Iran but also the Robert Malley affair (look it up), chances are he feels he needs to show his toughness on the issue.
Thirdly, and it goes without saying and has been emphasised time and time again, Israel will now destroy them and, electorally, has to pound them into the ground.
If you want to look at how quickly the penny is dropping, look at Iran's statements this morning. They can't get away enough from saying they had nothing to do with the attack after being reticent to deny it on Saturday. They must be sh1t scared they have gone too far.
Yes no doubt Hamas has put the cat among the pigeons and is hoping Israel will over react which with Netanyehu is more than possible.
But if Israel steps back and decides not to be channelled down Hamas` path it will regain control of the situation and can then sort out Iran.
Do we think Netanyahu is the person to step back? He will believe, surely, that his failure over security can be expunged by the severity of his response. Do we really think that he will take this time to reflect on the strategic benefits of stepping back?
No he's a twat.
But currently hes in the position where he needs to take the views of others ( the opposition and the US ) on board.
No Israeli PM could “step back” right now. Its ludicrous. For all they know Hamas has even bigger and more nefarious plans ready to run
Plus the thirst for revenge is intense and can’t be ignored. There won’t be any stepping back, whoever is Israeli PM (and I suspect Netanyahu will be toppled by all this, in time)
Then theyre missing a chance and will simply do what their enemy wants them to.
Killing a handful of Hamas footsoldiers will achieve little, they will be replaced and I cant see Israel really wanting an urban war campaign as its horribly messy and will cost lots of IDF lives.
Hamas want to play asymmetric warfare, Israel needs to avoid the trap and sort out their paymasters. Theres a lot to be gained from it.
Maybe, but realpolitik means Israel has to wreak revenge and go for the Hamas network INSIDE Gaza
I imagine they will also be plotting retaliation against Iran
The immediate future for the Middle East is looking quite a lot darker
It currently is reeking revenge with artillery and airstrikes. I can watch it on TV.
But we`re still back to an urban campaign which will be a mess. Set aside the massive civilian casualties on our screens every night but will the IDF want wade through streets with drones, suicide bombers, IEDs and hand to hand combat ? The IDF likes clean campaigns with low casualties thats not whats on offer in Gaza and their military knows it.
As for Hamas they will struggle to clear Gaza bar targetted strikes. There are easier Hamas targets outside Gaza and I anticipate they will go for them
What you say is perhaps logical but logic is not the only game here. Emotions are at play. Israelis want revenge
The Israeli Army announces that the number of called up reservists has increased from 100 000 to 300 000 and that the Army is now nearing "the attack phase"
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
There are doubtless still people in Ireland today who would be hostile towards an English man like myself living among them (not that I've met any), and there were brutal attacks carried out by the IRA, but it was never the policy of the IRA to exterminate every English person living in Ireland, as opposed to decreasing the British government and forcing a British withdrawal.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
This just feels like some exceptionalist thinking - I'm pretty sure the IRA wanted every English person out of Ireland and I don't see how that is particularly distinct from Hamas wanting every Israeli Jewish person out of the land they view as theirs. Is your position that because the IRA didn't want to kill every English person on Irish soil that this is somehow distinct? If that was the only option available to them, I think they would have taken it.
Sounds logical. So in your view there should not be an Israel in the Middle East have I got that right?
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
Hamas crossings are in their hundreds versus tens of thousands of IDF with tanks. They will eventually be wiped out its only the media adding to the immediacy of a crisis.
For Israel the big question is what next ? Hamas have already set a series traps for the Israelis to walk in to - bombing civilian Gaza, inciting the arab world to anger etc. Israel needs to find a way to avoid this. Since the prime beneficiary of this will be Iran, Israel should avoid Gaza fight and take its revenge on the Tehran regime.
Therefore
1. kick Hamas out of Israel and reseal the border. 2 Broker a deal with the Saudis whereby Israel says no more bombing of Gaza if Saudi and Israel can have normal relations 3. Transfer all Palestinian prisoners to Saudi so Hamas have nothing to negotiate for 4. Concentrate on neutering Iranian regime 5 Take out Irans nuclear programme
Iran is a state of 80 million, but ethnic persians are only about 55% of the population there are a lot of disaffected minorities. The regime survives by hard force but even the Persians are fed up with the clerics. Iran is ripe for a regime change which will then cut the funding and arming of the extremists surrounding Israel.
Better to aim for the kingpins than kill a few footsoldiers in Gaza
One of the more interesting facets (so far) has been the lack of outpouring in Arab nations in support of Hamas. Yes, there have been demonstrations in Jordan, Turkey etc and the shooting in Alexandria but, given the scale of the attack and its consequences, you would have expected far more.
Apart from what that says about whether these demonstrations are truly spontaneous or are orchestrated, I think it is becoming more and more obvious that Hamas has had a big tactical victory but this will be a massive strategic disaster on several fronts.
Firstly, for the Middle Eastern regimes such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, this is a massive blow. Not necessarily because of the peace accords but because what Hamas has done is so spectacular, it has put their carefully laid out long-term strategic plans in jeopardy. Does Dubai look such a great long-term investment after this? Do you want Saudis running your sports leagues and clubs? The western world - and most of the investment still comes from there with China looking an uncertain bet more and more - counts. Plus, without going Jeremy Corbyn, there are a lot of influential links between Israel and its citizens and many decision makers.
Secondly, this will massively undercut the apologists for the Palestinians in the West. Look at the reaction to Corbyn's mealy-mouthed response or the fringe events at the Labour party conference. The pictures are so graphic, anything less than 100% support for Israel will be seen as appeasement. So now Starmer is likely to have to reopen action against those who are pro-Palestine. In the States, the Squad - rightfully - is coming under major attack for their calls for a ceasefire. I see Schumer laid into the Chinese for their response this morning and, given Biden is under attack not just for the unfreezing of $6 billion of assets to Iran but also the Robert Malley affair (look it up), chances are he feels he needs to show his toughness on the issue.
Thirdly, and it goes without saying and has been emphasised time and time again, Israel will now destroy them and, electorally, has to pound them into the ground.
If you want to look at how quickly the penny is dropping, look at Iran's statements this morning. They can't get away enough from saying they had nothing to do with the attack after being reticent to deny it on Saturday. They must be sh1t scared they have gone too far.
Yes no doubt Hamas has put the cat among the pigeons and is hoping Israel will over react which with Netanyehu is more than possible.
But if Israel steps back and decides not to be channelled down Hamas` path it will regain control of the situation and can then sort out Iran.
Do we think Netanyahu is the person to step back? He will believe, surely, that his failure over security can be expunged by the severity of his response. Do we really think that he will take this time to reflect on the strategic benefits of stepping back?
No he's a twat.
But currently hes in the position where he needs to take the views of others ( the opposition and the US ) on board.
No Israeli PM could “step back” right now. Its ludicrous. For all they know Hamas has even bigger and more nefarious plans ready to run
Plus the thirst for revenge is intense and can’t be ignored. There won’t be any stepping back, whoever is Israeli PM (and I suspect Netanyahu will be toppled by all this, in time)
Then theyre missing a chance and will simply do what their enemy wants them to.
Killing a handful of Hamas footsoldiers will achieve little, they will be replaced and I cant see Israel really wanting an urban war campaign as its horribly messy and will cost lots of IDF lives.
Hamas want to play asymmetric warfare, Israel needs to avoid the trap and sort out their paymasters. Theres a lot to be gained from it.
Maybe, but realpolitik means Israel has to wreak revenge and go for the Hamas network INSIDE Gaza
I imagine they will also be plotting retaliation against Iran
The immediate future for the Middle East is looking quite a lot darker
It currently is reeking revenge with artillery and airstrikes. I can watch it on TV.
But we`re still back to an urban campaign which will be a mess. Set aside the massive civilian casualties on our screens every night but will the IDF want wade through streets with drones, suicide bombers, IEDs and hand to hand combat ? The IDF likes clean campaigns with low casualties thats not whats on offer in Gaza and their military knows it.
As for Hamas they will struggle to clear Gaza bar targetted strikes. There are easier Hamas targets outside Gaza and I anticipate they will go for them
What you say is perhaps logical but logic is not the only game here. Emotions are at play. Israelis want revenge
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
There are doubtless still people in Ireland today who would be hostile towards an English man like myself living among them (not that I've met any), and there were brutal attacks carried out by the IRA, but it was never the policy of the IRA to exterminate every English person living in Ireland, as opposed to decreasing the British government and forcing a British withdrawal.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
This just feels like some exceptionalist thinking - I'm pretty sure the IRA wanted every English person out of Ireland and I don't see how that is particularly distinct from Hamas wanting every Israeli Jewish person out of the land they view as theirs. Is your position that because the IRA didn't want to kill every English person on Irish soil that this is somehow distinct? If that was the only option available to them, I think they would have taken it.
Your going to have to find a reference for that claim that the IRA wanted every English person out of Ireland, rather than to get the government and soldiers out.
My position is that Hamas are exceptionally brutal and uncompromising, and I cannot justify their actions from a freedom fighting perspective. It's nihilistic violence directed purposefully against civilians. It's of a very different character to most other liberation struggles that I'm aware of.
The Israeli Army announces that the number of called up reservists has increased from 100 000 to 300 000 and that the Army is now nearing "the attack phase"
300,000. Sweet jesus
It sounds like they are going for total annihilation and maybe expulsion of the Gazans?
The Israeli Army announces that the number of called up reservists has increased from 100 000 to 300 000 and that the Army is now nearing "the attack phase"
They are going to sweep Gaza. At the front you will have a wave of Hamas crazies trying to kill everyone. At the rear a tidal wave of refugees heading for the Egyptian border.
For all the grief that Israel gets from imprisoning Gaza, don't forget that Egypt does the same. What will their response be? Keep the border shut?
The Israeli Army announces that the number of called up reservists has increased from 100 000 to 300 000 and that the Army is now nearing "the attack phase"
300,000. Sweet jesus
It sounds like they are going for total annihilation and maybe expulsion of the Gazans?
A higher number sounds a bit more like an attempt to occupy Gaza with the population in situ. You need fewer soldiers if your intent is to occupy an empty wasteland.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What exactly is Israel occupying?
The land that was given to them by European powers that previously had Palestinian people on it. As well as the specific areas over the last decades where you can point to literal individual families who were thrown out of their houses only for settlers to move in.
So you are disputing United Nations Resolution 181? Just want to get an idea of what your terms of discussion are. Just to try to frame it in an acknowledged timeframe, you know five years, 50 years, five thousand years, etc.
I think that the land apportioned under that resolution and the management of relationships between a Palestinian state and an Israeli state unnecessarily involved the displacement of thousands of Palestinians (in the same way that the partition of India displaced thousands of Muslims and Hindus from the various regions in that area). That the local Arab people did not want the land apportioned in that manner and a consensus was not build and was instead enforced upon a people who were under British control since 1922, suggests that this partitioning of land was always going to be an issue of conflict and contention.
I also think that the evolution of the Israeli state on the base of ethnic and religious grounds - which was not the original desire of many Jewish Zionists who lived in mixed communities in Palestinian lands prior to the creation of the Israeli state - increased the conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian protostate, and the people who lived on the land. I think that the acts of an occupying force stem directly from policy decisions, from both left and right wing Israeli governments, that Israel needs to be an ethnically and religiously homogenous state where Palestinian people do not have a right to live.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
The Israeli Army announces that the number of called up reservists has increased from 100 000 to 300 000 and that the Army is now nearing "the attack phase"
300,000. Sweet jesus
It sounds like they are going for total annihilation and maybe expulsion of the Gazans?
A higher number sounds a bit more like an attempt to occupy Gaza with the population in situ. You need fewer soldiers if your intent is to occupy an empty wasteland.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
I meant their religious/ideological DNA. Their charter. Their raison d’etre. Not their literal genes
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What exactly is Israel occupying?
The land that was given to them by European powers that previously had Palestinian people on it. As well as the specific areas over the last decades where you can point to literal individual families who were thrown out of their houses only for settlers to move in.
So you are disputing United Nations Resolution 181? Just want to get an idea of what your terms of discussion are. Just to try to frame it in an acknowledged timeframe, you know five years, 50 years, five thousand years, etc.
I think that the land apportioned under that resolution and the management of relationships between a Palestinian state and an Israeli state unnecessarily involved the displacement of thousands of Palestinians (in the same way that the partition of India displaced thousands of Muslims and Hindus from the various regions in that area). That the local Arab people did not want the land apportioned in that manner and a consensus was not build and was instead enforced upon a people who were under British control since 1922, suggests that this partitioning of land was always going to be an issue of conflict and contention.
I also think that the evolution of the Israeli state on the base of ethnic and religious grounds - which was not the original desire of many Jewish Zionists who lived in mixed communities in Palestinian lands prior to the creation of the Israeli state - increased the conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian protostate, and the people who lived on the land. I think that the acts of an occupying force stem directly from policy decisions, from both left and right wing Israeli governments, that Israel needs to be an ethnically and religiously homogenous state where Palestinian people do not have a right to live.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
So that's a no, you don't think UN 181 was justified. It made provisions for an "Arab" and a "Jewish" state and hence you disagree with the premise of the resolution?
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What exactly is Israel occupying?
The land that was given to them by European powers that previously had Palestinian people on it. As well as the specific areas over the last decades where you can point to literal individual families who were thrown out of their houses only for settlers to move in.
So you are disputing United Nations Resolution 181? Just want to get an idea of what your terms of discussion are. Just to try to frame it in an acknowledged timeframe, you know five years, 50 years, five thousand years, etc.
I think that the land apportioned under that resolution and the management of relationships between a Palestinian state and an Israeli state unnecessarily involved the displacement of thousands of Palestinians (in the same way that the partition of India displaced thousands of Muslims and Hindus from the various regions in that area). That the local Arab people did not want the land apportioned in that manner and a consensus was not build and was instead enforced upon a people who were under British control since 1922, suggests that this partitioning of land was always going to be an issue of conflict and contention.
I also think that the evolution of the Israeli state on the base of ethnic and religious grounds - which was not the original desire of many Jewish Zionists who lived in mixed communities in Palestinian lands prior to the creation of the Israeli state - increased the conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian protostate, and the people who lived on the land. I think that the acts of an occupying force stem directly from policy decisions, from both left and right wing Israeli governments, that Israel needs to be an ethnically and religiously homogenous state where Palestinian people do not have a right to live.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
Israel *IS* a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and others are all citizens. Which is more than you can say for some of the surrounding countries - whither the fate of non-muslims in Iran? Or even the wrong type of muslim?
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
I meant their religious/ideological DNA. Their charter. Their raison d’etre. Not their literal genes
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
Ironically, the same in much of the Middle East in those time. Because the Ottoman Empire was generally the most tolerant of the major European nations (at least up until the late 19th Century), Jews were spread throughout the Empire including much of the Middle East. These communities were then effectively expelled post-the establishment of Israel.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What exactly is Israel occupying?
The land that was given to them by European powers that previously had Palestinian people on it. As well as the specific areas over the last decades where you can point to literal individual families who were thrown out of their houses only for settlers to move in.
So you are disputing United Nations Resolution 181? Just want to get an idea of what your terms of discussion are. Just to try to frame it in an acknowledged timeframe, you know five years, 50 years, five thousand years, etc.
I think that the land apportioned under that resolution and the management of relationships between a Palestinian state and an Israeli state unnecessarily involved the displacement of thousands of Palestinians (in the same way that the partition of India displaced thousands of Muslims and Hindus from the various regions in that area). That the local Arab people did not want the land apportioned in that manner and a consensus was not build and was instead enforced upon a people who were under British control since 1922, suggests that this partitioning of land was always going to be an issue of conflict and contention.
I also think that the evolution of the Israeli state on the base of ethnic and religious grounds - which was not the original desire of many Jewish Zionists who lived in mixed communities in Palestinian lands prior to the creation of the Israeli state - increased the conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian protostate, and the people who lived on the land. I think that the acts of an occupying force stem directly from policy decisions, from both left and right wing Israeli governments, that Israel needs to be an ethnically and religiously homogenous state where Palestinian people do not have a right to live.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
Israel *IS* a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and others are all citizens. Which is more than you can say for some of the surrounding countries - whither the fate of non-muslims in Iran? Or even the wrong type of muslim?
From Wiki:
Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Iranian parliament. Iran is home to the second largest Jewish community in the Muslim world and the Middle East.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
I meant their religious/ideological DNA. Their charter. Their raison d’etre. Not their literal genes
Duh
My point stands either way. Events drive culture.
What are the events that you believe have driven the prevailing culture amongst the Arabs' attitude towards the Jews.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What exactly is Israel occupying?
The land that was given to them by European powers that previously had Palestinian people on it. As well as the specific areas over the last decades where you can point to literal individual families who were thrown out of their houses only for settlers to move in.
So you are disputing United Nations Resolution 181? Just want to get an idea of what your terms of discussion are. Just to try to frame it in an acknowledged timeframe, you know five years, 50 years, five thousand years, etc.
I think that the land apportioned under that resolution and the management of relationships between a Palestinian state and an Israeli state unnecessarily involved the displacement of thousands of Palestinians (in the same way that the partition of India displaced thousands of Muslims and Hindus from the various regions in that area). That the local Arab people did not want the land apportioned in that manner and a consensus was not build and was instead enforced upon a people who were under British control since 1922, suggests that this partitioning of land was always going to be an issue of conflict and contention.
I also think that the evolution of the Israeli state on the base of ethnic and religious grounds - which was not the original desire of many Jewish Zionists who lived in mixed communities in Palestinian lands prior to the creation of the Israeli state - increased the conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian protostate, and the people who lived on the land. I think that the acts of an occupying force stem directly from policy decisions, from both left and right wing Israeli governments, that Israel needs to be an ethnically and religiously homogenous state where Palestinian people do not have a right to live.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
Israel *IS* a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and others are all citizens. Which is more than you can say for some of the surrounding countries - whither the fate of non-muslims in Iran? Or even the wrong type of muslim?
From Wiki:
Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Iranian parliament. Iran is home to the second largest Jewish community in the Muslim world and the Middle East.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What exactly is Israel occupying?
The land that was given to them by European powers that previously had Palestinian people on it. As well as the specific areas over the last decades where you can point to literal individual families who were thrown out of their houses only for settlers to move in.
So you are disputing United Nations Resolution 181? Just want to get an idea of what your terms of discussion are. Just to try to frame it in an acknowledged timeframe, you know five years, 50 years, five thousand years, etc.
I think that the land apportioned under that resolution and the management of relationships between a Palestinian state and an Israeli state unnecessarily involved the displacement of thousands of Palestinians (in the same way that the partition of India displaced thousands of Muslims and Hindus from the various regions in that area). That the local Arab people did not want the land apportioned in that manner and a consensus was not build and was instead enforced upon a people who were under British control since 1922, suggests that this partitioning of land was always going to be an issue of conflict and contention.
I also think that the evolution of the Israeli state on the base of ethnic and religious grounds - which was not the original desire of many Jewish Zionists who lived in mixed communities in Palestinian lands prior to the creation of the Israeli state - increased the conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian protostate, and the people who lived on the land. I think that the acts of an occupying force stem directly from policy decisions, from both left and right wing Israeli governments, that Israel needs to be an ethnically and religiously homogenous state where Palestinian people do not have a right to live.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
Israel *IS* a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and others are all citizens. Which is more than you can say for some of the surrounding countries - whither the fate of non-muslims in Iran? Or even the wrong type of muslim?
From Wiki:
Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Iranian parliament. Iran is home to the second largest Jewish community in the Muslim world and the Middle East.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
There are doubtless still people in Ireland today who would be hostile towards an English man like myself living among them (not that I've met any), and there were brutal attacks carried out by the IRA, but it was never the policy of the IRA to exterminate every English person living in Ireland, as opposed to decreasing the British government and forcing a British withdrawal.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
This just feels like some exceptionalist thinking - I'm pretty sure the IRA wanted every English person out of Ireland and I don't see how that is particularly distinct from Hamas wanting every Israeli Jewish person out of the land they view as theirs. Is your position that because the IRA didn't want to kill every English person on Irish soil that this is somehow distinct? If that was the only option available to them, I think they would have taken it.
Sounds logical. So in your view there should not be an Israel in the Middle East have I got that right?
I mean, I think there were multiple solutions to the so called "Jewish Question" of the 20th century - the first and foremost being that the countries with a history of persecuting Jewish people and mass state sponsored anti Semitism should all have a good hard look at themselves and make their countries welcome places for Jewish people rather than deciding that having one Jewish state would be a better solution (indeed, many non Jewish people liked the idea of a single Jewish state specifically because they were anti Semites who wanted somewhere to send all the Jewish people in their countries).
To the degree that I believe any state should exist (they shouldn't, but I'm not going to get into that utopian position) I believe that if Israel was to exist in the Middle East that partitioning land based on ethnic and religious grounds was the wrong thing to do, and the better option would have been a multicultural state that recognised the specific history of Jewish persecution that led to its creation, but that also gave the right of self determination to the people who lived there under colonial British rule. The Jewish diaspora and the Palestinian people could have worked together to form a single state. I understand that would have been difficult, no doubt, and I also understand the underlying concerns of the Jewish community about persecution in a state that was not solely under Jewish control. But coexistence was already happening in communities across that land, and I think a single state would have been (and still is) the only solution for a lasting peace.
"Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, just said that he has ordered a “complete closure” of the Gaza Strip. “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” will be allowed into the coastal enclave, Gallant said."
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
I meant their religious/ideological DNA. Their charter. Their raison d’etre. Not their literal genes
Duh
Don't use the abbreviation DNA then. There is no religious DNA.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
I mean, one group in that scenario an occupying group and one group is an occupied group - that is my distinction.
What exactly is Israel occupying?
The land that was given to them by European powers that previously had Palestinian people on it. As well as the specific areas over the last decades where you can point to literal individual families who were thrown out of their houses only for settlers to move in.
So you are disputing United Nations Resolution 181? Just want to get an idea of what your terms of discussion are. Just to try to frame it in an acknowledged timeframe, you know five years, 50 years, five thousand years, etc.
I think that the land apportioned under that resolution and the management of relationships between a Palestinian state and an Israeli state unnecessarily involved the displacement of thousands of Palestinians (in the same way that the partition of India displaced thousands of Muslims and Hindus from the various regions in that area). That the local Arab people did not want the land apportioned in that manner and a consensus was not build and was instead enforced upon a people who were under British control since 1922, suggests that this partitioning of land was always going to be an issue of conflict and contention.
I also think that the evolution of the Israeli state on the base of ethnic and religious grounds - which was not the original desire of many Jewish Zionists who lived in mixed communities in Palestinian lands prior to the creation of the Israeli state - increased the conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian protostate, and the people who lived on the land. I think that the acts of an occupying force stem directly from policy decisions, from both left and right wing Israeli governments, that Israel needs to be an ethnically and religiously homogenous state where Palestinian people do not have a right to live.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
So that's a no, you don't think UN 181 was justified. It made provisions for an "Arab" and a "Jewish" state and hence you disagree with the premise of the resolution?
Yes, I'm pretty sure my explanation makes that clear, and why.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
Hamas crossings are in their hundreds versus tens of thousands of IDF with tanks. They will eventually be wiped out its only the media adding to the immediacy of a crisis.
For Israel the big question is what next ? Hamas have already set a series traps for the Israelis to walk in to - bombing civilian Gaza, inciting the arab world to anger etc. Israel needs to find a way to avoid this. Since the prime beneficiary of this will be Iran, Israel should avoid Gaza fight and take its revenge on the Tehran regime.
Therefore
1. kick Hamas out of Israel and reseal the border. 2 Broker a deal with the Saudis whereby Israel says no more bombing of Gaza if Saudi and Israel can have normal relations 3. Transfer all Palestinian prisoners to Saudi so Hamas have nothing to negotiate for 4. Concentrate on neutering Iranian regime 5 Take out Irans nuclear programme
Iran is a state of 80 million, but ethnic persians are only about 55% of the population there are a lot of disaffected minorities. The regime survives by hard force but even the Persians are fed up with the clerics. Iran is ripe for a regime change which will then cut the funding and arming of the extremists surrounding Israel.
Better to aim for the kingpins than kill a few footsoldiers in Gaza
One of the more interesting facets (so far) has been the lack of outpouring in Arab nations in support of Hamas. Yes, there have been demonstrations in Jordan, Turkey etc and the shooting in Alexandria but, given the scale of the attack and its consequences, you would have expected far more.
Apart from what that says about whether these demonstrations are truly spontaneous or are orchestrated, I think it is becoming more and more obvious that Hamas has had a big tactical victory but this will be a massive strategic disaster on several fronts.
Firstly, for the Middle Eastern regimes such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, this is a massive blow. Not necessarily because of the peace accords but because what Hamas has done is so spectacular, it has put their carefully laid out long-term strategic plans in jeopardy. Does Dubai look such a great long-term investment after this? Do you want Saudis running your sports leagues and clubs? The western world - and most of the investment still comes from there with China looking an uncertain bet more and more - counts. Plus, without going Jeremy Corbyn, there are a lot of influential links between Israel and its citizens and many decision makers.
Secondly, this will massively undercut the apologists for the Palestinians in the West. Look at the reaction to Corbyn's mealy-mouthed response or the fringe events at the Labour party conference. The pictures are so graphic, anything less than 100% support for Israel will be seen as appeasement. So now Starmer is likely to have to reopen action against those who are pro-Palestine. In the States, the Squad - rightfully - is coming under major attack for their calls for a ceasefire. I see Schumer laid into the Chinese for their response this morning and, given Biden is under attack not just for the unfreezing of $6 billion of assets to Iran but also the Robert Malley affair (look it up), chances are he feels he needs to show his toughness on the issue.
Thirdly, and it goes without saying and has been emphasised time and time again, Israel will now destroy them and, electorally, has to pound them into the ground.
If you want to look at how quickly the penny is dropping, look at Iran's statements this morning. They can't get away enough from saying they had nothing to do with the attack after being reticent to deny it on Saturday. They must be sh1t scared they have gone too far.
Yes no doubt Hamas has put the cat among the pigeons and is hoping Israel will over react which with Netanyehu is more than possible.
But if Israel steps back and decides not to be channelled down Hamas` path it will regain control of the situation and can then sort out Iran.
Do we think Netanyahu is the person to step back? He will believe, surely, that his failure over security can be expunged by the severity of his response. Do we really think that he will take this time to reflect on the strategic benefits of stepping back?
No he's a twat.
But currently hes in the position where he needs to take the views of others ( the opposition and the US ) on board.
No Israeli PM could “step back” right now. Its ludicrous. For all they know Hamas has even bigger and more nefarious plans ready to run
Plus the thirst for revenge is intense and can’t be ignored. There won’t be any stepping back, whoever is Israeli PM (and I suspect Netanyahu will be toppled by all this, in time)
Then theyre missing a chance and will simply do what their enemy wants them to.
Killing a handful of Hamas footsoldiers will achieve little, they will be replaced and I cant see Israel really wanting an urban war campaign as its horribly messy and will cost lots of IDF lives.
Hamas want to play asymmetric warfare, Israel needs to avoid the trap and sort out their paymasters. Theres a lot to be gained from it.
A "handful" of footsoldiers?
Them is some mighty big hands then. The life expectancy of a 16 - 40 old male in Gaza can probably be measured in days. The slaughter of anyone deemed to have "resisted" will be extraordinary. The Israeli people will accept nothing less.
"Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, just said that he has ordered a “complete closure” of the Gaza Strip. “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” will be allowed into the coastal enclave, Gallant said."
Is that in itself a war crime? Israel has the sympathy of the world. It should not blow it.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
There are doubtless still people in Ireland today who would be hostile towards an English man like myself living among them (not that I've met any), and there were brutal attacks carried out by the IRA, but it was never the policy of the IRA to exterminate every English person living in Ireland, as opposed to decreasing the British government and forcing a British withdrawal.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
This just feels like some exceptionalist thinking - I'm pretty sure the IRA wanted every English person out of Ireland and I don't see how that is particularly distinct from Hamas wanting every Israeli Jewish person out of the land they view as theirs. Is your position that because the IRA didn't want to kill every English person on Irish soil that this is somehow distinct? If that was the only option available to them, I think they would have taken it.
Sounds logical. So in your view there should not be an Israel in the Middle East have I got that right?
I mean, I think there were multiple solutions to the so called "Jewish Question" of the 20th century - the first and foremost being that the countries with a history of persecuting Jewish people and mass state sponsored anti Semitism should all have a good hard look at themselves and make their countries welcome places for Jewish people rather than deciding that having one Jewish state would be a better solution (indeed, many non Jewish people liked the idea of a single Jewish state specifically because they were anti Semites who wanted somewhere to send all the Jewish people in their countries).
To the degree that I believe any state should exist (they shouldn't, but I'm not going to get into that utopian position) I believe that if Israel was to exist in the Middle East that partitioning land based on ethnic and religious grounds was the wrong thing to do, and the better option would have been a multicultural state that recognised the specific history of Jewish persecution that led to its creation, but that also gave the right of self determination to the people who lived there under colonial British rule. The Jewish diaspora and the Palestinian people could have worked together to form a single state. I understand that would have been difficult, no doubt, and I also understand the underlying concerns of the Jewish community about persecution in a state that was not solely under Jewish control. But coexistence was already happening in communities across that land, and I think a single state would have been (and still is) the only solution for a lasting peace.
Over the last few years I have been listening to Daniel Khan - a Jewish folk / punk singer. One of the songs he sings, which is a translation of "Oh you foolish little zionists" (1931), has the stanza:
You want to take us to Jerusalem So we can die as a nation We'd rather stay in the Diaspora And fight for our liberation
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
I meant their religious/ideological DNA. Their charter. Their raison d’etre. Not their literal genes
Duh
Don't use the abbreviation DNA then. There is no religious DNA.
I’ll use my English language how I like. So you can fuck off
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
There are doubtless still people in Ireland today who would be hostile towards an English man like myself living among them (not that I've met any), and there were brutal attacks carried out by the IRA, but it was never the policy of the IRA to exterminate every English person living in Ireland, as opposed to decreasing the British government and forcing a British withdrawal.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
This just feels like some exceptionalist thinking - I'm pretty sure the IRA wanted every English person out of Ireland and I don't see how that is particularly distinct from Hamas wanting every Israeli Jewish person out of the land they view as theirs. Is your position that because the IRA didn't want to kill every English person on Irish soil that this is somehow distinct? If that was the only option available to them, I think they would have taken it.
Sounds logical. So in your view there should not be an Israel in the Middle East have I got that right?
I mean, I think there were multiple solutions to the so called "Jewish Question" of the 20th century - the first and foremost being that the countries with a history of persecuting Jewish people and mass state sponsored anti Semitism should all have a good hard look at themselves and make their countries welcome places for Jewish people rather than deciding that having one Jewish state would be a better solution (indeed, many non Jewish people liked the idea of a single Jewish state specifically because they were anti Semites who wanted somewhere to send all the Jewish people in their countries).
To the degree that I believe any state should exist (they shouldn't, but I'm not going to get into that utopian position) I believe that if Israel was to exist in the Middle East that partitioning land based on ethnic and religious grounds was the wrong thing to do, and the better option would have been a multicultural state that recognised the specific history of Jewish persecution that led to its creation, but that also gave the right of self determination to the people who lived there under colonial British rule. The Jewish diaspora and the Palestinian people could have worked together to form a single state. I understand that would have been difficult, no doubt, and I also understand the underlying concerns of the Jewish community about persecution in a state that was not solely under Jewish control. But coexistence was already happening in communities across that land, and I think a single state would have been (and still is) the only solution for a lasting peace.
Cannot fault your thinking.
But we are where we are and the United Nations decided upon a course of events some 70 years ago.
You now find yourself in the position of justifying Hamas' violence because you disagree with that United Nations resolution.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
That was never on the cards. The Arab states that invaded Israel wanted to achieve a final solution to the Jewish Question.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
I meant their religious/ideological DNA. Their charter. Their raison d’etre. Not their literal genes
Duh
Feersum clearly wasn't talking about "their literal genes" either. Duh.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Neither side is good, but it is all shades of grey rather than entirely backing one side over the other.
I read that story and think that the tragedy isn't just a dead 14 year-old, its that she lived in "Jenin refugee camp". She is 14. She is not a refugee. Neither are her parents. Or potentially their parents.
I understand that people were displaced from their homes. But it was not their country - there was no country. The idea that we have these multi-generational camps - awaiting the day when the invading Jew is removed and the Ottoman empire restored - is madness.
The status quo patently does not work. A peace will have to imposed as it cannot be negotiated, and unfortunately that will leave Israel a fortress and Gaza / chunks of the West Bank a ruin. Unless neighbouring arab states intervene and forge a settlement.
Instead of these multi-generational refugee camps, people should be offered to settle in other parts of the former empire, or to become Israeli citizens as several million already have. Israel does terrible things to people in camps like this girl, but it is not seeking death to the arab in the way that Hamas et al seek death to the Jew. Arabs are represented in in the Knesset as equals - an arab is deputy speaker FFS.
We are way past being able to do a two state solution. It will be peace on Israel's terms. Let us hope they don't decide that they need a buffer zone between them and the genocidal neighbours - because if so they will carve it out of Egypy, Jordan and Lebanon. Again.
It was their country. It was the land on which they lived and the land they were expelled from. It may not have had a formal recognition but it was still their homeland. You are simply indulging in victim blaming.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
I think it is reasonable to expect Palestinian self-styled freedom fighters to keep to the rules of war. Keep to military targets and avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
If they had done so I think they would find they had a lot more sympathy in the West. I don't accept that the brutal targeting of civilians we have seen is an inevitable consequence of occupation.
Why - they have been the inevitable consequences of previous occupations; again, Ireland, India, South Africa: all had civilian targets and casualties.
Again - let's go to my thought experiment I previously mentioned of an occupied England 80 years after WW2 (and, for the sake of argument, let us remove the spectre of Nazism - not because fascism is not an extra existential threat, but because I want to highlight a reaction to any military occupation, not just a fascist one). Do you think "English freedom fighters" would not target, say, Berlin or Munich or even a German run London or Manchester? That, after 80 years of occupation, they might kidnap German citizens who were present in England - even if they had nothing to do directly with the occupation? I think it is clearly inevitable; ideologically, because those civilians would represent occupation as much as the state or military, but also strategically, because they would be easier to target and you could leverage them easier than a politician or a soldier.
The IRA were not paragons of virtue, and many civilians were killed by the IRA, but did you know that they also often gave warnings before their bomb attacks on economic targets, because their objective was not, in general, to cause the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
But that is not the view of every Palestinian who turns to Hamas. Hamas also do a lot of on the ground work to look after Palestinian civilians - you can say this is a cynical ploy or is a sincere concern for their people - but either way the incentive structure for Palestinian support of Hamas and their tactics exists because the incentive to support the PLO or another peaceful solution keeps getting closed down. And I'm pretty sure many members of the IRA wanted no English people on the island of Ireland.
There are doubtless still people in Ireland today who would be hostile towards an English man like myself living among them (not that I've met any), and there were brutal attacks carried out by the IRA, but it was never the policy of the IRA to exterminate every English person living in Ireland, as opposed to decreasing the British government and forcing a British withdrawal.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
This just feels like some exceptionalist thinking - I'm pretty sure the IRA wanted every English person out of Ireland and I don't see how that is particularly distinct from Hamas wanting every Israeli Jewish person out of the land they view as theirs. Is your position that because the IRA didn't want to kill every English person on Irish soil that this is somehow distinct? If that was the only option available to them, I think they would have taken it.
Sounds logical. So in your view there should not be an Israel in the Middle East have I got that right?
I mean, I think there were multiple solutions to the so called "Jewish Question" of the 20th century - the first and foremost being that the countries with a history of persecuting Jewish people and mass state sponsored anti Semitism should all have a good hard look at themselves and make their countries welcome places for Jewish people rather than deciding that having one Jewish state would be a better solution (indeed, many non Jewish people liked the idea of a single Jewish state specifically because they were anti Semites who wanted somewhere to send all the Jewish people in their countries).
To the degree that I believe any state should exist (they shouldn't, but I'm not going to get into that utopian position) I believe that if Israel was to exist in the Middle East that partitioning land based on ethnic and religious grounds was the wrong thing to do, and the better option would have been a multicultural state that recognised the specific history of Jewish persecution that led to its creation, but that also gave the right of self determination to the people who lived there under colonial British rule. The Jewish diaspora and the Palestinian people could have worked together to form a single state. I understand that would have been difficult, no doubt, and I also understand the underlying concerns of the Jewish community about persecution in a state that was not solely under Jewish control. But coexistence was already happening in communities across that land, and I think a single state would have been (and still is) the only solution for a lasting peace.
Cannot fault your thinking.
But we are where we are and the United Nations decided upon a course of events some 70 years ago.
You now find yourself in the position of justifying Hamas' violence because you disagree with that United Nations resolution.
I now find myself in the position of recognising the inevitability of Hamas' violence because of the long history that led the world here. Is it justifying the sacking of the monasteries to explain why Henry VIII did what he did? No - that is history. We just happen to be living in history, and therefore explaining modern events as if they were history involves giving cause and effect. I am not saying that Hamas' violence is good; in the same way I am not saying that the violence of the Israeli state is good. I can understand why both happen. I am saying to get to a world where we have reduced violence and a peaceful solution to the Israel / Palestine conflict that is not "one side genocides the other" what decisions should have been made, and what decisions can still be made.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Neither side is good, but it is all shades of grey rather than entirely backing one side over the other.
I read that story and think that the tragedy isn't just a dead 14 year-old, its that she lived in "Jenin refugee camp". She is 14. She is not a refugee. Neither are her parents. Or potentially their parents.
I understand that people were displaced from their homes. But it was not their country - there was no country. The idea that we have these multi-generational camps - awaiting the day when the invading Jew is removed and the Ottoman empire restored - is madness.
The status quo patently does not work. A peace will have to imposed as it cannot be negotiated, and unfortunately that will leave Israel a fortress and Gaza / chunks of the West Bank a ruin. Unless neighbouring arab states intervene and forge a settlement.
Instead of these multi-generational refugee camps, people should be offered to settle in other parts of the former empire, or to become Israeli citizens as several million already have. Israel does terrible things to people in camps like this girl, but it is not seeking death to the arab in the way that Hamas et al seek death to the Jew. Arabs are represented in in the Knesset as equals - an arab is deputy speaker FFS.
We are way past being able to do a two state solution. It will be peace on Israel's terms. Let us hope they don't decide that they need a buffer zone between them and the genocidal neighbours - because if so they will carve it out of Egypy, Jordan and Lebanon. Again.
It was their country. It was the land on which they lived and the land they were expelled from. It may not have had a formal recognition but it was still their homeland. You are simply indulging in victim blaming.
There was a United Nations resolution dividing the land and the Arabs disagreed with that Resolution and hence they invaded the newly-created Israel aiming to wipe it off the map. During the course of that war, which Israel found itself winning, Israel thought "fuck it and fuck you" and started to expel Arabs from their villages. As I noted the other day when we were discussing, like the victim of a mugging who overpowers their attacker and gives them one extra slap.
"Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, just said that he has ordered a “complete closure” of the Gaza Strip. “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” will be allowed into the coastal enclave, Gallant said."
Is that in itself a war crime? Israel has the sympathy of the world. It should not blow it.
It is stretching the limit for sure. However, having made a formal declaration of war, the question then becomes how much of the responsibility transfers to the other side to say, for example, organise an evacuation of people etc. Certainly, in WW1 and WW2, there were no war crimes punishments for Allied blockades.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
I meant their religious/ideological DNA. Their charter. Their raison d’etre. Not their literal genes
Duh
Don't use the abbreviation DNA then. There is no religious DNA.
I’ll use my English language how I like. So you can fuck off
Of course you can. But you sound like a berk when you critique a reply which uses the same metaphor.
"Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, just said that he has ordered a “complete closure” of the Gaza Strip. “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” will be allowed into the coastal enclave, Gallant said."
Is that in itself a war crime? Israel has the sympathy of the world. It should not blow it.
You don’t understand. Israel is almost beyond caring. They see this as existential, which I’ve been saying on here for some time
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Israel has behaved with great cruelty towards the Palestinians. In some respects it is reaping what it sowed: I agree
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants them all to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
I read something on Twitter/X yesterday which I thought was quite revealing. Think what each group would do if they had full power to.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
Yes. I absolutely believe that - especially after this weekend. Hamas would kill every Jew they could. It’s in their DNA
I once had an interesting chat with an elderly German lady - a distant relative of my late wife - who was born in around 1920 in what was then Palestine. She remembered her childhood as an idyllic time, with Jewish, Muslim and Christian neighbours who all got on with one another in relative peace. Very few people of any denomination wanted to kill anyone else. It is events since then that have made murderers of people, not their DNA.
I meant their religious/ideological DNA. Their charter. Their raison d’etre. Not their literal genes
Duh
Feersum clearly wasn't talking about "their literal genes" either. Duh.
I assumed that Leon didn't mean literal DNA but couldn't be sure - he sometimes surprises with the gaps in his understanding of science. Hence my response that was intended to cover either interpretation.
"Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, just said that he has ordered a “complete closure” of the Gaza Strip. “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” will be allowed into the coastal enclave, Gallant said."
Is that in itself a war crime? Israel has the sympathy of the world. It should not blow it.
You don’t understand. Israel is almost beyond caring. They see this as existential, which I’ve been saying on here for some time
Israeli Defense Minister: “We are fighting human animals and acting accordingly”
Comments
Hello Nick, do you agree with Corbyn's response to the cameras yesterday when asked about what was happening?
Maybe we should finish off the Black Sea Fleet or give Ukraine 100 F16s
Is Amnesty International saying that people should be resorting to violence:
https://x.com/Farid_Senzai/status/1710987857094131753?s=20
Is Haaretz saying people should be resorting to violence:
https://twitter.com/nathanjrobinson/status/1711185184177975447
Or, like the PLO spokesperson here, are they just making it clear that it is the actions of recent Israeli governments that have made peaceful solutions impossible and therefore left a vacuum where people feel the only solution is violence:
https://twitter.com/hzomlot/status/1710750718024409484
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Can those involved please sort it out pronto.
tia
It's not accurate to to draw an equivalence between the IRA and Hamas. The objective of the IRA was to defeat the British government. The objective of Hamas is to kill every Jew who does not flee from Israel.
Does this help or hinder SKS ?
*waves from the Maginot Line*
As I said, fair enough. If that is your position you wouldn't be alone in adopting it.
But currently hes in the position where he needs to take the views of others ( the opposition and the US ) on board.
Plus the thirst for revenge is intense and can’t be ignored. There won’t be any stepping back, whoever is Israeli PM (and I suspect Netanyahu will be toppled by all this, in time)
In what way is it an own goal? What is this nirvana that they could have expected from Israel by waiting patiently for the next several decades while suffering the daily indignities of their confinement?
The only risk is if nutters go off on one supporting Palestine, and there's not much sign of that.
Security against a weaker adversary is mostly "try to stop them attacking you, if they succeed then block that avenue so they can't do it again". You obviously try to anticipate things that haven't been tried yet but you don't always succeed. They've been doing this ever since 1967, sometimes failing and then reacting. Lots of people got killed by rocket attacks, they built defences against rocket attacks.
That said, Labour might be getting some unwanted attention at their conference because of the Middle East crisis rather than in spite of it. There are plenty of cranks at a loose end that are all too accessible to the media, willing to give their half-baked takes on evil Israeli Imperialists and noble Palestinian Freedom Fighters. I understand one Jeremy Corbyn has been commenting (though I haven't seen the content so can't comment on his words), and anti-Israeli comments, perhaps verging on the antisemitic, are aired within the Conference I don't think you'll need AI to splice together clips of Starmer swearing his head off because we'll be able to hear it in Liverpool.
However, in reality, in case of shortage, the richer countries would just buy-out everyone else and the economics would switch land-use domestically too, although that'd take effect over a 6-18 month timescale.
Killing a handful of Hamas footsoldiers will achieve little, they will be replaced and I cant see Israel really wanting an urban war campaign as its horribly messy and will cost lots of IDF lives.
Hamas want to play asymmetric warfare, Israel needs to avoid the trap and sort out their paymasters. Theres a lot to be gained from it.
last 72 hours. That is explicitly what the IDF generals are saying. Everything has changed
Just tightening the border and ramping up surveillance isn’t going to cut it, not this time
The terrible dilemma is: how does Israel do this? How does it change the facts on the ground?
Difficult time for you right now I'm guessing. What exactly are the Palestinians confined to and where would you like them to be so as to be unconfined?
The public will still see the headline announcements .
https://www.dci-palestine.org/palestinian_girl_dies_two_days_after_an_israeli_bullet_to_the_head
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
I imagine they will also be plotting retaliation against Iran
The immediate future for the Middle East is looking quite a lot darker
https://podtail.com/podcast/it-could-happen-here/the-weaponizing-of-anti-semitism-with-adam-broombe/
Adam Broomberg is a Jewish anti-Zionist activist who grew up in South Africa under the apartheid regime. His grandparents entered South Africa after fleeing Europe and became "accepted" in white society. He was educated in a Jewish Zionist school system, and has family members who live in Israel. He discusses his journey to anti-Zionism, his relation to activism, and how he has been called an anti-Semite by many Jewish and non-Jewish people. It was an interesting listen in late September when it released, and I think is an interesting perspective given the international situation now.
It's not remotely comparable. It's incredibly insulting actually.
Equally I'm sure there have been Israeli deaths from Palestinian rockets from time to time (quick google 29 in 2022 from knife, bomb, and shooting).
But that is different from the scale of what we saw over the weekend.
I think scale counts for something.
But nothing justifies what we saw on Saturday. The gleeful depravity, the sadistic misogyny, the ISIS-like barbarism
Part of me just wants both sides to go outside and settle it once and for all. Fight to the death. Enough. It’s like being stuck on a long train ride with a loud, rude, and constantly bickering couple
How was it that Norman rule came to an end?
Israel has a solid security relationship with Azerbaijan (as does Turkey). After recent events, Israel might be very, very happy to offer a lot of military support if Azerbaijan needs it to fend off the Iranians. Not sure if Israel would join the war directly, and use it to lob some missiles at Iranian nuclear sites.
I read that story and think that the tragedy isn't just a dead 14 year-old, its that she lived in "Jenin refugee camp". She is 14. She is not a refugee. Neither are her parents. Or potentially their parents.
I understand that people were displaced from their homes. But it was not their country - there was no country. The idea that we have these multi-generational camps - awaiting the day when the invading Jew is removed and the Ottoman empire restored - is madness.
The status quo patently does not work. A peace will have to imposed as it cannot be negotiated, and unfortunately that will leave Israel a fortress and Gaza / chunks of the West Bank a ruin. Unless neighbouring arab states intervene and forge a settlement.
Instead of these multi-generational refugee camps, people should be offered to settle in other parts of the former empire, or to become Israeli citizens as several million already have. Israel does terrible things to people in camps like this girl, but it is not seeking death to the arab in the way that Hamas et al seek death to the Jew. Arabs are represented in in the Knesset as equals - an arab is deputy speaker FFS.
We are way past being able to do a two state solution. It will be peace on Israel's terms. Let us hope they don't decide that they need a buffer zone between them and the genocidal neighbours - because if so they will carve it out of Egypy, Jordan and Lebanon. Again.
Israel has had pretty much power over the Palestinians and could do what they wanted. Although conditions were not good in Gaza people there have been able to go about their lives.
What would Hamas do if it had the power to? I would think they would exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on.
That, for me, is the difference.
But we`re still back to an urban campaign which will be a mess. Set aside the massive civilian casualties on our screens every night but will the IDF want wade through streets with drones, suicide bombers, IEDs and hand to hand combat ? The IDF likes clean campaigns with low casualties thats not whats on offer in Gaza and their military knows it.
As for Hamas they will struggle to clear Gaza bar targetted strikes. There are easier Hamas targets outside Gaza and I anticipate they will go for them
It’s going to be hideous
Those savage beasts do not represent the Palestinians.
Anyone who supports the Palestinian cause would make a great mistake siding with those criminals.
It would be like if Salvadorans would have sided with MS13 terrorists, just because we share ancestors or nationality.
The best thing that happened to us as a nation was to get rid of those rapists and murderers, and let the good people thrive.
Palestinians should do the same: get rid of those animals and let the good people thrive.
That's the only way forward.
https://x.com/nayibbukele/status/1711220281820278875?s=20
My position is that Hamas are exceptionally brutal and uncompromising, and I cannot justify their actions from a freedom fighting perspective. It's nihilistic violence directed purposefully against civilians. It's of a very different character to most other liberation struggles that I'm aware of.
It sounds like they are going for total annihilation and maybe expulsion of the Gazans?
For all the grief that Israel gets from imprisoning Gaza, don't forget that Egypt does the same. What will their response be? Keep the border shut?
I also think that the evolution of the Israeli state on the base of ethnic and religious grounds - which was not the original desire of many Jewish Zionists who lived in mixed communities in Palestinian lands prior to the creation of the Israeli state - increased the conflict between the Israeli state and the Palestinian protostate, and the people who lived on the land. I think that the acts of an occupying force stem directly from policy decisions, from both left and right wing Israeli governments, that Israel needs to be an ethnically and religiously homogenous state where Palestinian people do not have a right to live.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
Unfortunately we are about to find out
Duh
Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Iranian parliament. Iran is home to the second largest Jewish community in the Muslim world and the Middle East.
To the degree that I believe any state should exist (they shouldn't, but I'm not going to get into that utopian position) I believe that if Israel was to exist in the Middle East that partitioning land based on ethnic and religious grounds was the wrong thing to do, and the better option would have been a multicultural state that recognised the specific history of Jewish persecution that led to its creation, but that also gave the right of self determination to the people who lived there under colonial British rule. The Jewish diaspora and the Palestinian people could have worked together to form a single state. I understand that would have been difficult, no doubt, and I also understand the underlying concerns of the Jewish community about persecution in a state that was not solely under Jewish control. But coexistence was already happening in communities across that land, and I think a single state would have been (and still is) the only solution for a lasting peace.
"Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, just said that he has ordered a “complete closure” of the Gaza Strip. “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” will be allowed into the coastal enclave, Gallant said."
Them is some mighty big hands then. The life expectancy of a 16 - 40 old male in Gaza can probably be measured in days. The slaughter of anyone deemed to have "resisted" will be extraordinary. The Israeli people will accept nothing less.
You want to take us to Jerusalem
So we can die as a nation
We'd rather stay in the Diaspora
And fight for our liberation
But we are where we are and the United Nations decided upon a course of events some 70 years ago.
You now find yourself in the position of justifying Hamas' violence because you disagree with that United Nations resolution.
Israel could have existed as a multi ethnic, multi religious state which also recognised the specific history and context of the Jewish people that aimed to be both a homeland for Jewish people and accommodate the people who lived on that land prior to the creation of the Israeli state. Indeed, many such communities already existed with Jewish people who had fled Europe living alongside Palestinians and other Arab communities.
That was never on the cards. The Arab states that invaded Israel wanted to achieve a final solution to the Jewish Question.
So Hamas does have a middlegame. It wasn’t a one-off
This leads to total war and - maybe - the expulsion of the Gazans into Egypt
Labour wants closer ties with EU
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/10/08/britain-will-start-dating-the-eu-under-labour-plans-suggest/
Just as it moves off to the right
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/08/afd-germany-elections-bavaria-olaf-sholz-far-right/
Duh.
"We are preparing for an all-out war,” Deputy head of Hamas tells Lebanon’s pro-Hezbollah Al Mayadeen network.“
https://x.com/treyyingst/status/1695154074813919270?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
But you sound like a berk when you critique a reply which uses the same metaphor.