I am forced to note, with regret, that several of you have already broken the Law of Leon, and said things I disagree with
Given that it is early days for this new dispensation, I am prepared to be magnanimous, and ignore these tomfool remarks, or forgive them as childish errors
This lenience, however, is strictly time-limited
I am completely unbiddable so you will have to put up with me disagreeing with you, teasing you and generally winding you up for a while longer.
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Countries at war do not supply goods and services to those they fight. Britain didn't. No country does. It will cause great suffering undoubtedly - especially for the innocent. And, yes, the hate will continue.
What I find odd is that Israel is expected to think about the morality of their actions. But Hamas are not. Hamas are not children. They have chosen to fight in the way they have and if the result of that is that the innocent on their side suffer they have to take responsibility for that.
Hamas could abandon now their goal of seeking to destroy Israel in its entirety and kill every Jew on the planet and then there might be the possibility of some peace and a 2-state solution. But they prefer to aim for the total destruction of Israel. Why should Israelis of all people be expected to turn the other cheek? What happened the last time they ignored the risks to them from those seeking their total elimination?
Hamas are expected to think about the morality of their actions. The international condemnation of their actions demonstrates that. Hamas soldiers who have committed war crimes should be tried.
Avoiding war crimes, something I didn’t realise was controversial until I came to PB.com, doesn’t mean turning the other cheek. Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself and seek to defeat Hamas, as they are doing. But Israel does not have to abandon the rules of war to do that. Everyone should try and avoid war crimes, regardless of their opponent. That’s how law works. It’s not an optional extra. You should know that.
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
In "Playing to the Edge", Michael Hayden describes how, in hunting terrorists, the US tried to avoid killing innocents along with the guilty. So, naturally, the terrorists often used innocents as shields. For example, a terrorist leaving his home might always keep a grandson beside him.
Then there are the accidental killings. From time to time one reads of gang bangers in US cities killing small children. I am not an apologist for gang bangers, but from the accounts I have read, those killings are almost always accidents; the child was too close to someone the gang banger was trying to kill.
I am not sure that the previous Israeli use of white phosphorus against civilians in Gaza could be considered accidental.
Go on Richard - don't hold back. Tell us that Israel deserved it and got a bloody good hiding. You know you want to.
Killing those from other countries and attacking a music festival full of young people who were there to promote peace must surely go down as one of the worst ever decisions made by Hamas .
This really does change the feelings amongst the international community .
I was disappointed to see many in the international community, and politicians in the UK, Greens in Scotland, SF in the North of Ireland, supporting Hamas and justifying their actions.
This can never be justified.
Plenty on PB as well if you prefer not to look as far.
Wondering whether the Corbynites still left in Labour might sense an opportunity here to go full public with what is happening in the Middle East - not only do you sprout what you believe in and will have more of an audience than you usually do but, by doing so, you undermine SKS - whose position is rooted in the belief he can deliver a majority but is not loved - by hurting Labour.
The thing is that most people still in the Labour party who you would call Corbynites do not want to hurt the Labour party, because they still see it as the best vehicle for positive change and see the Tories as such a problem. This is part of why I think Starmer's shift rightward is more real than strategic - he knows the left do not have anywhere else to go, he also knows that many of Corbyn's more moderate policies (such as renationalisation) have broad support from across the political spectrum. He isn't doing those things because he doesn't believe in them.
There are though still a significant number if not a majority of of such far left members, many of whom joined the Labour Party to vote for Corbyn and have not yet left, judged in terms of the active members who attend meetings if not all members. In my CLP there are a hard core of such members who have lost the plot. Ever since they failed to get the parliamentary candidate who they wanted they have been indulging in a wrecking spree, lashing out at all around them to absolutely no purpose. They have not lifted a finger to support general election campaigning and don't care a hoot if their actions are hurting that campaign.
That said, the behaviour is so extreme that we are probably not typical of a Labour CLP, thank god. And there are a good number of other members well to the left who are of course working constructively with the rest of us.
Wondering whether the Corbynites still left in Labour might sense an opportunity here to go full public with what is happening in the Middle East - not only do you sprout what you believe in and will have more of an audience than you usually do but, by doing so, you undermine SKS - whose position is rooted in the belief he can deliver a majority but is not loved - by hurting Labour.
The thing is that most people still in the Labour party who you would call Corbynites do not want to hurt the Labour party, because they still see it as the best vehicle for positive change and see the Tories as such a problem. This is part of why I think Starmer's shift rightward is more real than strategic - he knows the left do not have anywhere else to go, he also knows that many of Corbyn's more moderate policies (such as renationalisation) have broad support from across the political spectrum. He isn't doing those things because he doesn't believe in them.
Yes. This is the flipside of Labourism - the belief that Labour is the only valid vehicle for progressive change in Britain.
Just as Labour members believe that the Greens, LibDems and various nats can never deserve the votes of progressives, the corollary is that they must never leave the Labour party to start their own, even when the leadership has taken a direction with which they strongly disagree.
This comes, partly, from two opposed factional beliefs. The trade union, and even soviet, belief that for the working class to succeed they need to speak with a unanimity of voice - that a union representative, or the party, will do what they can in the best interest of the workers and once that decision is made it is binding and any quarrel reduces the power of workers' interests. This is understandable - the power of the worker comes from the necessity of their labour and the fact they outnumber the capitalist, so the method of controlling that labour and mass needs to be streamlined (a more anarchist approach would argue instead of a union rep or workers' party, for example, all workers should be shareholder voters in the struggle and things should be decided with direct democracy). I think that method worked well in the industrial era; in the era of mass media and internet and such I think the more anarchistic approach could actually work better when assisted with technology.
The other tendency is, of course, that of the neoliberal belief - that essentially an administrative state, once given enough data, can sort of technocratically make things happen. That technocratic tendency, however, actually creates a huge authoritarian nightmare. This is where Blairite ID cards come from (something that Blair is still trying to sell to SKS to do when he's in government), it's why the UK has so many goddamn security cameras and it is also why SKS is so very authoritarian in his control of the party apparatus. This is because to collect the kind of data these technocrats want you either a) have to get civilian consent or b) just surveil as much as they can. And the infrastructures that exist to collect that data can then be used for non technocratic ends.
So both of these factions in the party, for different reasons, have a tendency towards conformity and unanimity and, arguably, authoritarianism. It is interesting that, of the recent leaders of the Labour party, it is Corbyn who was most accepting of dissent (both openly and from behind closed doors) and willing to listen to others, compared with Miliband or SKS.
Killing those from other countries and attacking a music festival full of young people who were there to promote peace must surely go down as one of the worst ever decisions made by Hamas .
This really does change the feelings amongst the international community .
I was disappointed to see many in the international community, and politicians in the UK, Greens in Scotland, SF in the North of Ireland, supporting Hamas and justifying their actions.
This can never be justified.
Sinn Fein see Hamas as brothers in arms. They'd act similarly if they could.
I have been busy today but catching up on the thread it makes awful reading and goodness knows where this goes. Indeed having had a cup of tea on our patio just now, it makes us realise how fortunate we are to live in the UK, despite the ups and downs
I just 'hope and pray' that the innocent Israeli and Palestinians find safe refuge from the worst of 'mans inhumanity to man'
I missed Rachel Reeves speech but judging by this thread, and the media generally, I doubt it will achieve the cut through labour hoped, when to be fair UK domestic politics is a side show at present
I would comment that I am very sorry for Scotland's First Minister and his family and, frankly, I cannot understand why the SNP haven't immediately terminated their arrangements with the Greens following some dreadful comments by one their msps:-
Scotland's First Minister Humza Yousaf says his parents-in-law are trapped in Gaza after Hamas attack on Israel
Mr Yousaf issued an "unequivocal condemnation" of the Hamas attack. He said both he and his wife "cannot sleep" due to worry and said his parents-in-law are "trapped" in Gaza and is fearful whether they will "make it through the night or not".
The parents of Humza Yousaf's wife Nadia El-Nakla were in Gaza visiting family when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel at the weekend, killing hundreds, according to reports.
Speaking to journalists on Monday, Mr Yousaf said: "As many will know, my wife is Palestinian. Her mum and dad, my in-laws, who live in Dundee, live in Scotland, they've been in Gaza and are currently trapped in Gaza, I'm afraid."
The trapped couple were visiting the father-in-law's 92-year-old "elderly and frail" mother when the Hamas attack took place.
They have since been told by Israeli authorities to leave because "Gaza will effectively be obliterated", the first minister said.
How are they supposed to leave ? This could turn even more horrific if people are just stuck there .
There are broadly 4 possible outcomes to the Gaza crisis:
1. The status quo is maintained with a ceasefire or similar. It is hard to see this.
2. Gaza’s current “status” is maintained but with Israel driving Hamas from power - a possible outcome but what replaces Hamas? Not entirely convincing that Israel will take that option, if it just means the cycle begins anew.
3. Full occupation of Gaza with some form of Israeli-backed government. Does create the potential for a long and bloody occupation and guerilla warfare.
4. The ‘nuclear option’ of Gaza being largely depopulated and fully annexed.
None of these options are good ones. The fifth (negotiated peace and a lasting solution) sadly looks far too remote to even suggest.
I agree with your analysis. I reckon, with some hesitation, it will be either 3 or 4, they are the only ones that give Israel the prize it wants: assurance that October 7 is not repeated
But Jeez they are bleak
I suspect you are sadly correct. The thing that may prevent 4 is that the sheer international condemnation that will attract, and the risk this escalates the war to other Arab nations. But 3 has all the hallmarks of the worst decades of The Troubles, but even worse. Depressing.
The Troubles provide a map for now to solve these problems. Use security forces to stop attacks, but acknowledge the underlying issues leading to the violence and work for a settlement, including by talking to people who have waged attacks.
Exactly. In the end you have to talk. Israel cannot wipe out Hamas any more than the UK could wipe out the IRA, at least not without committing genocide and becoming the evil they sought to eradicate.
Absolutely. The difficulty that has been faced time and again is that Hamas doesn't and might not ever recognise Israel's right to exist. I think that it is a reasonable prerequisite for talks.
And if you ask Hamas they are quite comfortable with the martyrdom quota increasing as it has been and will continue to do so, intensely I'm sure, over the next few days and weeks.
As I noted (several times) previously the aim of the Hamas leadership is the cessation of Israel as a phenomenon.
Sinn Fein/IRA did not recognise the right of Northern Ireland to exist when we started talking to them. The only humane long-term resolution requires people to talk to each other. Insisting on preconditions delays that. Hamas should change their position on this, but not talking leads to more violence. Start negotiating, even if both sides seem implacably opposed to everything the other side believes.
Apparently the list of projects that the HS2 money was going to be spent on was only illustrative !
As revealed by Mark Harper on the BBC yesterday morning
Mark Harper must be mistaken. The government are definitely investing £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast mainline. No equivocation, no caveats, Sunak announced it so it's real*. Whats more the people of North Wales are very supportive of the government for this excellent development
*Vreenack: "Its a FAAAAAAKE" Sisko: "Its REEEEAAAAKLLLL" etc
I to think the PB Credulants – led by Big G The Credulous – lapped it all up.
Apparently the list of projects that the HS2 money was going to be spent on was only illustrative !
As revealed by Mark Harper on the BBC yesterday morning
Mark Harper must be mistaken. The government are definitely investing £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast mainline. No equivocation, no caveats, Sunak announced it so it's real*. Whats more the people of North Wales are very supportive of the government for this excellent development
*Vreenack: "Its a FAAAAAAKE" Sisko: "Its REEEEAAAAKLLLL" etc
Why all the capitals and histrionics
I said that the announcement was welcomed in North Wales but that it is accepted it would be a long term investment project over many years
The savings on HS2 cancellation will be redirected to other schemes, almost certainly by labour, and HS2 is not being resurrected by them
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
Every population has its proportion of vile people and peaceful people. Sadly, it is the vile ones that tend to rise to the top when times are hard.
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
But then, what can Israel do, to ensure it never faces another October 7?
The choice seems to be a cruel Occupation and partial settlement by Jews, or the hideous ethnic cleansing
I struggle to see what other choices it has. All the choices are abominable and evil, but that is the sitch
There are broadly 4 possible outcomes to the Gaza crisis:
1. The status quo is maintained with a ceasefire or similar. It is hard to see this.
2. Gaza’s current “status” is maintained but with Israel driving Hamas from power - a possible outcome but what replaces Hamas? Not entirely convincing that Israel will take that option, if it just means the cycle begins anew.
3. Full occupation of Gaza with some form of Israeli-backed government. Does create the potential for a long and bloody occupation and guerilla warfare.
4. The ‘nuclear option’ of Gaza being largely depopulated and fully annexed.
None of these options are good ones. The fifth (negotiated peace and a lasting solution) sadly looks far too remote to even suggest.
I agree with your analysis. I reckon, with some hesitation, it will be either 3 or 4, they are the only ones that give Israel the prize it wants: assurance that October 7 is not repeated
But Jeez they are bleak
I suspect you are sadly correct. The thing that may prevent 4 is that the sheer international condemnation that will attract, and the risk this escalates the war to other Arab nations. But 3 has all the hallmarks of the worst decades of The Troubles, but even worse. Depressing.
The Troubles provide a map for now to solve these problems. Use security forces to stop attacks, but acknowledge the underlying issues leading to the violence and work for a settlement, including by talking to people who have waged attacks.
Exactly. In the end you have to talk. Israel cannot wipe out Hamas any more than the UK could wipe out the IRA, at least not without committing genocide and becoming the evil they sought to eradicate.
Absolutely. The difficulty that has been faced time and again is that Hamas doesn't and might not ever recognise Israel's right to exist. I think that it is a reasonable prerequisite for talks.
And if you ask Hamas they are quite comfortable with the martyrdom quota increasing as it has been and will continue to do so, intensely I'm sure, over the next few days and weeks.
As I noted (several times) previously the aim of the Hamas leadership is the cessation of Israel as a phenomenon.
Sinn Fein/IRA did not recognise the right of Northern Ireland to exist when we started talking to them. The only humane long-term resolution requires people to talk to each other. Insisting on preconditions delays that. Hamas should change their position on this, but not talking leads to more violence. Start negotiating, even if both sides seem implacably opposed to everything the other side believes.
Hamas has just marched into Israel and killed or kidnapped every Jew it could find: men, women, children
How can you “negotiate” with that kind of implacable, violent hatred? Should we have “negotiated” with Hitler?
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
There is huge support in Gaza for the Hamas leadership. They can send thousands of "militants" to Israel on near suicide missions. They have mass rallies of hundreds of thousands in the streets protesting against Israel and the Great Satan. They show pictures of six-yr old girls wielding AKs and crying with happiness at the onslaught happening in Israel.
But they are all harmless civilians who only want to find a way out of danger.
It must be very strange living inside your head where everything in the world is so black and white.
It is dangerously close to exactly the sort of attitude that led to Rwanda, Bosnia and indeed the Holocaust. Regarding people as a mass (and indeed to use the words of your friend Netenyahu as animals) rather than individuals is an easy road to 'untermensch'.
You seem pretty conflicted about it all.
Those poor Gazans who turned out in their hundreds of thousands to celebrate actions against Israel are now to be pitied. Of course it's best that civilians leave and they can do so via Egypt or indeed the coast if they wanted to. I have heard nothing about a port blockade perhaps you know different..
They can't leave for other countries without visas, and any boats are likely to be blown out of the water by the Israeli navy, which imposes struct limits even on fishermen.
The idea that a couple of million can just decide to leave is laughable.
There are broadly 4 possible outcomes to the Gaza crisis:
1. The status quo is maintained with a ceasefire or similar. It is hard to see this.
2. Gaza’s current “status” is maintained but with Israel driving Hamas from power - a possible outcome but what replaces Hamas? Not entirely convincing that Israel will take that option, if it just means the cycle begins anew.
3. Full occupation of Gaza with some form of Israeli-backed government. Does create the potential for a long and bloody occupation and guerilla warfare.
4. The ‘nuclear option’ of Gaza being largely depopulated and fully annexed.
None of these options are good ones. The fifth (negotiated peace and a lasting solution) sadly looks far too remote to even suggest.
I agree with your analysis. I reckon, with some hesitation, it will be either 3 or 4, they are the only ones that give Israel the prize it wants: assurance that October 7 is not repeated
But Jeez they are bleak
I agree with that. But 4 is the only one that doesn't eventually lead us back to where we are now. 3 will result in years of Israel's security forces being sniped at, captured, and huge cost, without any real security, and eventually a more moderate government will pull out and we are back where we are now in due course.
4 solves this particular problem for ever. Different problems may arise but they will be physically further away. I think it is what I would do if I was a hard line Israeli if I could ignore the mass international opprobrium that would follow. And - no, I don't condone it.
Agreed that, if you take a very cold-blooded hard-hearted view (and no I do not agree with it), 4 is the one with the most chance of a permanent 'resolution'.
However, what I mentioned FPT may be a better bet, namely Egypt and Israel turn Gaza into a co-ruled state. The Egyptians can then do the hard crackdown stuff on Hamas and the internal order while the Israelis give them support and fund Gaza. In Egypt's case, that would probably mean giving them tons of money / Western weapons plus recognition for Sisi and a blind eye to what he does. However, as a solution, it may work.
That's actually a pretty good solution. It is maybe the only one which doesn't end in terrible perpetual suffering for Gazans, or total ethnic cleansing of Gaza (beyond all the dreamland two state stuff)
Unfortunately I doubt Egypt will be interested, but maybe a TON of money could do it
There will be no permanent solution until Hamas abandons its aim to eliminate Israel entirely. Lose that and a solution can be found.
That aim is loudly proclaimed on the streets of London, Sydney and other western cities and wouldn't go away if Hamas did a deal, so in reality Israel's only solution is victory.
No, it isn't. Hardliners can be outflanked by talks. The IRA proclaimed loudly that nothing would satisfy them but a united Ireland, but in the end compromise was found.
That compromise entailed codifying a process to achieve a united Ireland peacefully.
How could an equivalent process for the abolition of Israel be negotiated?
Ireland isn't united. It's still two countries.
That's not William's point as I understand it.
I think he's saying the NI Agreement codified a process that republicans could follow to achieve that underlying aim without violence (and also went some way to actually going there with some joint structures and self-governance). Has that yet led to a united Ireland? Clearly not, but the argument that the best way of achieving that goal remains through politics rather than the gun does seem to have achieved widespread acceptance for all the problems at Stormont.
With the Middle East, the aim of many people is the destruction of Israel as a homeland for Jewish people. You can potentially provide a roadmap for peacefully achieving a Palestinian state in addition to and perhaps even involving some land from Israel... but you can't for the annihilation of Israel.
The issue comes with the European idea that partitioning people, regardless of their attachment to the land, is a sensible plan. It is why you have tensions between India and Pakistan, it explains many of the tensions amongst and within African nations, and it explains the problem with Israel / Palestine. One nation with both peoples is the only solution. A process of truth and reconciliation is the only option. Given where we are now, the people of Israel cannot be expected to uproot and "go back" anywhere. Similarly, the Palestinian people in Gaza and who have been removed in favour of legal and illegal Israeli settlements deserve their right to return. Any political settlement must of course assure that any government would not persecute either group based on whoever is in control at any given term.
(I also think many other countries need to do this - the USA with the Native population, the descendants of slavery and many other nations that fall under the Monroe doctrine; the European imperial powers with the peoples they colonised; etc. etc.)
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
But then, what can Israel do, to ensure it never faces another October 7?
The choice seems to be a cruel Occupation and partial settlement by Jews, or the hideous ethnic cleansing
I struggle to see what other choices it has. All the choices are abominable and evil, but that is the sitch
My view is that a proportionate response would be to kill the Hamas fighters in Israel (if there are any left); go after the fighters in Gaza and destroy their military infrastructure ; fight to rescue the hostages (but acknowledge, some will die), and finally, properly seal the border, the way East Germany was sealed from West Germany.
Since we've been discussing war crimes, its important to remember that proportionality is an important principle, in determining reprisals.
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
It could be that the IDF go for a Battle of Algiers approach.
There are broadly 4 possible outcomes to the Gaza crisis:
1. The status quo is maintained with a ceasefire or similar. It is hard to see this.
2. Gaza’s current “status” is maintained but with Israel driving Hamas from power - a possible outcome but what replaces Hamas? Not entirely convincing that Israel will take that option, if it just means the cycle begins anew.
3. Full occupation of Gaza with some form of Israeli-backed government. Does create the potential for a long and bloody occupation and guerilla warfare.
4. The ‘nuclear option’ of Gaza being largely depopulated and fully annexed.
None of these options are good ones. The fifth (negotiated peace and a lasting solution) sadly looks far too remote to even suggest.
I agree with your analysis. I reckon, with some hesitation, it will be either 3 or 4, they are the only ones that give Israel the prize it wants: assurance that October 7 is not repeated
But Jeez they are bleak
I agree with that. But 4 is the only one that doesn't eventually lead us back to where we are now. 3 will result in years of Israel's security forces being sniped at, captured, and huge cost, without any real security, and eventually a more moderate government will pull out and we are back where we are now in due course.
4 solves this particular problem for ever. Different problems may arise but they will be physically further away. I think it is what I would do if I was a hard line Israeli if I could ignore the mass international opprobrium that would follow. And - no, I don't condone it.
Agreed that, if you take a very cold-blooded hard-hearted view (and no I do not agree with it), 4 is the one with the most chance of a permanent 'resolution'.
However, what I mentioned FPT may be a better bet, namely Egypt and Israel turn Gaza into a co-ruled state. The Egyptians can then do the hard crackdown stuff on Hamas and the internal order while the Israelis give them support and fund Gaza. In Egypt's case, that would probably mean giving them tons of money / Western weapons plus recognition for Sisi and a blind eye to what he does. However, as a solution, it may work.
That's actually a pretty good solution. It is maybe the only one which doesn't end in terrible perpetual suffering for Gazans, or total ethnic cleansing of Gaza (beyond all the dreamland two state stuff)
Unfortunately I doubt Egypt will be interested, but maybe a TON of money could do it
There will be no permanent solution until Hamas abandons its aim to eliminate Israel entirely. Lose that and a solution can be found.
That aim is loudly proclaimed on the streets of London, Sydney and other western cities and wouldn't go away if Hamas did a deal, so in reality Israel's only solution is victory.
No, it isn't. Hardliners can be outflanked by talks. The IRA proclaimed loudly that nothing would satisfy them but a united Ireland, but in the end compromise was found.
That compromise entailed codifying a process to achieve a united Ireland peacefully.
How could an equivalent process for the abolition of Israel be negotiated?
Ireland isn't united. It's still two countries.
That's not William's point as I understand it.
I think he's saying the NI Agreement codified a process that republicans could follow to achieve that underlying aim without violence (and also went some way to actually going there with some joint structures and self-governance). Has that yet led to a united Ireland? Clearly not, but the argument that the best way of achieving that goal remains through politics rather than the gun does seem to have achieved widespread acceptance for all the problems at Stormont.
With the Middle East, the aim of many people is the destruction of Israel as a homeland for Jewish people. You can potentially provide a roadmap for peacefully achieving a Palestinian state in addition to and perhaps even involving some land from Israel... but you can't for the annihilation of Israel.
The issue comes with the European idea that partitioning people, regardless of their attachment to the land, is a sensible plan. It is why you have tensions between India and Pakistan, it explains many of the tensions amongst and within African nations, and it explains the problem with Israel / Palestine. One nation with both peoples is the only solution. A process of truth and reconciliation is the only option. Given where we are now, the people of Israel cannot be expected to uproot and "go back" anywhere. Similarly, the Palestinian people in Gaza and who have been removed in favour of legal and illegal Israeli settlements deserve their right to return. Any political settlement must of course assure that any government would not persecute either group based on whoever is in control at any given term.
(I also think many other countries need to do this - the USA with the Native population, the descendants of slavery and many other nations that fall under the Monroe doctrine; the European imperial powers with the peoples they colonised; etc. etc.)
People will partition themselves, when forced into one State. Or the bigger group will attempt to wipe out the smaller group. There is no political settlement that will guarantee that won't happen. If the British had simply told Congress they could have the whole territory, and upped and left India, Muslim majority areas, and the soldiers in those areas would have carved out their own state. Ditto in Palestine. A unified State was tried in Cyprus, and it collapsed. Likewise in Yugoslavia.
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
But then, what can Israel do, to ensure it never faces another October 7?
The choice seems to be a cruel Occupation and partial settlement by Jews, or the hideous ethnic cleansing
I struggle to see what other choices it has. All the choices are abominable and evil, but that is the sitch
It could decide not to react in a way that is indiscriminate and disproportionate.
My local (Not the one we're at but the nearest) nursery has shut apparently. Couldn't make the sums work with (under)funded vs paying kids. There's about 500 houses being built near it too
Langold Nursery, only large nursery in the village & attached to the primary. It's our catchment primary too...
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
But then, what can Israel do, to ensure it never faces another October 7?
The choice seems to be a cruel Occupation and partial settlement by Jews, or the hideous ethnic cleansing
I struggle to see what other choices it has. All the choices are abominable and evil, but that is the sitch
It could decide not to react in a way that is indiscriminate and disproportionate.
We get it - you will be watching out for any bad behaviour from Israel.
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
There is huge support in Gaza for the Hamas leadership. They can send thousands of "militants" to Israel on near suicide missions. They have mass rallies of hundreds of thousands in the streets protesting against Israel and the Great Satan. They show pictures of six-yr old girls wielding AKs and crying with happiness at the onslaught happening in Israel.
But they are all harmless civilians who only want to find a way out of danger.
It must be very strange living inside your head where everything in the world is so black and white.
It is dangerously close to exactly the sort of attitude that led to Rwanda, Bosnia and indeed the Holocaust. Regarding people as a mass (and indeed to use the words of your friend Netenyahu as animals) rather than individuals is an easy road to 'untermensch'.
You seem pretty conflicted about it all.
Those poor Gazans who turned out in their hundreds of thousands to celebrate actions against Israel are now to be pitied. Of course it's best that civilians leave and they can do so via Egypt or indeed the coast if they wanted to. I have heard nothing about a port blockade perhaps you know different.
I don't for one moment think that every German in 1939 was complicit in the German war aims but I have read nowhere of a safe passage being discussed for them to escape the country before we bombed it.
This is the notion of collective guilt. It is explicitly a war crime.
My local (Not the one we're at but the nearest) nursery has shut apparently. Couldn't make the sums work with (under)funded vs paying kids. There's about 500 houses being built near it too
Langold Nursery, only large nursery in the village & attached to the primary. It's our catchment primary too...
My impression (no idea why that is, perhaps because I see lots of them around) is that nurseries are money printing factories. Very strange. Or is that just private ones.
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
But then, what can Israel do, to ensure it never faces another October 7?
The choice seems to be a cruel Occupation and partial settlement by Jews, or the hideous ethnic cleansing
I struggle to see what other choices it has. All the choices are abominable and evil, but that is the sitch
My view is that a proportionate response would be to kill the Hamas fighters in Israel (if there are any left); go after the fighters in Gaza and destroy their military infrastructure ; fight to rescue the hostages (but acknowledge, some will die), and finally, properly seal the border, the way East Germany was sealed from West Germany.
Since we've been discussing war crimes, its important to remember that proportionality is an important principle, in determining reprisals.
In other words, turn a devastated Gaza into an even more oppressive, intimidating prison, with even higher walls
I’m not mocking your answer, just pointing out what it entails
I honestly think the Gazans would be better off fleeing to Egypt if Egypt could be persuaded to take them; If they did the world could shower them with money, enabling them to have better lives, with freedom and dignity
But then I am probably guilty of wishful thinking, too
(I also think many other countries need to do this - the USA with the Native population, the descendants of slavery and many other nations that fall under the Monroe doctrine; the European imperial powers with the peoples they colonised; etc. etc.)
What would this mean in practice? That the USA annex the rest of the Americas and the European empires be reconstituted as unitary states?
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
There is huge support in Gaza for the Hamas leadership. They can send thousands of "militants" to Israel on near suicide missions. They have mass rallies of hundreds of thousands in the streets protesting against Israel and the Great Satan. They show pictures of six-yr old girls wielding AKs and crying with happiness at the onslaught happening in Israel.
But they are all harmless civilians who only want to find a way out of danger.
It must be very strange living inside your head where everything in the world is so black and white.
It is dangerously close to exactly the sort of attitude that led to Rwanda, Bosnia and indeed the Holocaust. Regarding people as a mass (and indeed to use the words of your friend Netenyahu as animals) rather than individuals is an easy road to 'untermensch'.
You seem pretty conflicted about it all.
Those poor Gazans who turned out in their hundreds of thousands to celebrate actions against Israel are now to be pitied. Of course it's best that civilians leave and they can do so via Egypt or indeed the coast if they wanted to. I have heard nothing about a port blockade perhaps you know different.
I don't for one moment think that every German in 1939 was complicit in the German war aims but I have read nowhere of a safe passage being discussed for them to escape the country before we bombed it.
This is the notion of collective guilt. It is explicitly a war crime.
Then it's one that every country including our own is guilty of. As noted above, it only matters if you lose. But actually of all the Nuremburg trials was one ever held for the bombing of Coventry?
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
There is huge support in Gaza for the Hamas leadership. They can send thousands of "militants" to Israel on near suicide missions. They have mass rallies of hundreds of thousands in the streets protesting against Israel and the Great Satan. They show pictures of six-yr old girls wielding AKs and crying with happiness at the onslaught happening in Israel.
But they are all harmless civilians who only want to find a way out of danger.
It must be very strange living inside your head where everything in the world is so black and white.
It is dangerously close to exactly the sort of attitude that led to Rwanda, Bosnia and indeed the Holocaust. Regarding people as a mass (and indeed to use the words of your friend Netenyahu as animals) rather than individuals is an easy road to 'untermensch'.
You seem pretty conflicted about it all.
Those poor Gazans who turned out in their hundreds of thousands to celebrate actions against Israel are now to be pitied. Of course it's best that civilians leave and they can do so via Egypt or indeed the coast if they wanted to. I have heard nothing about a port blockade perhaps you know different.
I don't for one moment think that every German in 1939 was complicit in the German war aims but I have read nowhere of a safe passage being discussed for them to escape the country before we bombed it.
Many Americans danced in the streets at the death of Bin Laden - if you were an Afghan or Iraqi whose country was ravaged by decade/s of war, how would that make you feel about the average American? The state of Israel has caused immense suffering for most people who live in the Gaza strip - more suffering than Bin Laden caused the average American. Of course they should be understood, empathised with and, perhaps, pitied (I don't really like pity as an emotion, but sure).
As for your example of Germans - the number of people who actively were involved in the death machine of the Nazi state who were held accountable were pitifully few! I'm not a "flog them and hang them" type, but the relatively few Nazi officials who were hanged for the crimes of the Nazi state when literally tens of thousands of people were involved, with hundreds if not thousands of those people in significantly influential positions, goes to show when mercy is extended to people (even if it arguably shouldn't have been). Hell, the apologia in the last week or so for a Ukrainian SS member has shown a literal SS soldier more understanding and empathy than you're willing to give a person living in the Gaza strip!
(I've mentioned the Nakam a few times today, and my understanding of that and the few Nazis that were actually brought to justice comes, in part, from this podcast about Abba Kovner:
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
But then, what can Israel do, to ensure it never faces another October 7?
The choice seems to be a cruel Occupation and partial settlement by Jews, or the hideous ethnic cleansing
I struggle to see what other choices it has. All the choices are abominable and evil, but that is the sitch
My view is that a proportionate response would be to kill the Hamas fighters in Israel (if there are any left); go after the fighters in Gaza and destroy their military infrastructure ; fight to rescue the hostages (but acknowledge, some will die), and finally, properly seal the border, the way East Germany was sealed from West Germany.
Since we've been discussing war crimes, its important to remember that proportionality is an important principle, in determining reprisals.
That's probably the best we can hope for in the near term.
Killing those from other countries and attacking a music festival full of young people who were there to promote peace must surely go down as one of the worst ever decisions made by Hamas .
This really does change the feelings amongst the international community .
I was disappointed to see many in the international community, and politicians in the UK, Greens in Scotland, SF in the North of Ireland, supporting Hamas and justifying their actions.
This can never be justified.
Plenty on PB as well if you prefer not to look as far.
I have not seen anyone on PB supporting Hamas. Seeking to understand their actions and seeking a long-lasting peace, seeking to avoid crimes against humanity, is not supporting or justifying Hamas.
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Irish Republicans killed more Irish Catholics than all other participants.
Killing those from other countries and attacking a music festival full of young people who were there to promote peace must surely go down as one of the worst ever decisions made by Hamas .
This really does change the feelings amongst the international community .
I was disappointed to see many in the international community, and politicians in the UK, Greens in Scotland, SF in the North of Ireland, supporting Hamas and justifying their actions.
This can never be justified.
Sinn Fein see Hamas as brothers in arms. They'd act similarly if they could.
Yet we made peace with them and Sinn Fein sits in the NI Assembly. I completely disagree with much SF say, but I’m glad those disagreements now take place through words, not bombs and bullets.
Apparently the list of projects that the HS2 money was going to be spent on was only illustrative !
As revealed by Mark Harper on the BBC yesterday morning
Mark Harper must be mistaken. The government are definitely investing £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast mainline. No equivocation, no caveats, Sunak announced it so it's real*. Whats more the people of North Wales are very supportive of the government for this excellent development
*Vreenack: "Its a FAAAAAAKE" Sisko: "Its REEEEAAAAKLLLL" etc
Why all the capitals and histrionics
I said that the announcement was welcomed in North Wales but that it is accepted it would be a long term investment project over many years
The savings on HS2 cancellation will be redirected to other schemes, almost certainly by labour, and HS2 is not being resurrected by them
What if it isn't a long term project, but a pile of words to get Rishi out of a hole?
"We've looked into N Wales electrification, but the numbers don't stack up. Soz."
We still don't know how much money will be saved. By the time the bleeding stumps of HSunak2 have been rendered useful and the contractors have been paid off, quite possibly no money will be saved at all.
Perhaps the government should have had a conversation about possible alternatives to HS2Manchester before pressing the "blow it all up" button. You know, democracy. Talking about things a bit.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 11m Proper rhetoric from Reeves. Well written, well delivered. More or less content-free
The real takeaway from both party conferences is that the leadership of both parties recognise there is no money. And the tightening could get even worse.
Geopolitical, economic and demographic headwinds aren't great. HMG won't be able to splurge again for some time.
The fact that Israel has the ability to cut off power , water and food supplies to Gaza highlights one of the issues that have bred hatred .
Hamas lives off the hatred . Children are brought up with the hatred and it’s just a repeating cycle.
There are still those on both sides who wanted a peaceful resolution , sadly that’s been consigned to the bin for yet more years .
Israel can raze Gaza to the ground but the hatred will remain .
But if the Israelis can somehow shift the Gazans into Egypt, then the hatred will be further away, and the chances of Hamas repeating their spectacular incursion will be greatly minimised
I do wonder if that is what the Israelis are planning. I don't see any other point in wading into Gaza at the cost of many thousands of lives, quite a few of them Israeli
Will Egypt accept them ? The whole situation is just awful. There are no good outcomes here .
Absolutely. No good outcomes
If Egypt seals the border (and they have tightened control this morning) then Israel will be left with a cornered population unable to go anywhere. What then?
I may be wrong and this isn't the Israeli plan, but then I am bewildered as to what Israel thinks it can achieve with ANOTHER invasion that does nothing but stir up evermore enmity. It simply ensures further attacks down the line
As I said last night, they might possibly be planning a renewed Occupation of Gaza, with Israel in control, and the reintroduction of Israeli settlers, who will act as a de facto spy network and military police, so October 7 is not repeated. But that's damnably tricky and could so easily go wrong
The final possibility is that Israel doesn't have a plan. It is acting in a spirit of pure revenge
With whom would they negotiate? Hamas is the *government* of Gaza. Israel has declared war on Gaza amd it shouldn't be a surprise - its *government* has launched these attacks.
So the Israeli goal will I believe be simple - remove Hamas as a threat. How they achieve that is tricky, but they won't just be pushing the cross-border terrorists back into their prison.
Removal of Hamas - and the Hamas state - has to be the goal. And that will largely mean the killing of anyone who is Hamas, supports Hamas, lives near Hamas. It is going to be awful - war usually is. Especially when the aggressor is pledged to the extermination of the other side.
That may be Israel’s strategy. That (“killing of anyone who […] lives near Hamas”) would clearly be a war crime and we, as in the UK, should do everything we can to stop war crimes. We cannot criticise Russia for war crimes in Ukraine and wave through Israel, or Hamas, committing war crimes.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: war crimes are bad. Don’t carry out war crimes. Don’t respond to say crimes with more war crimes. Why is that a proposition that some on PB struggle with?
"war crimes" is a fantasy. There is/are no such thing. They only exist for the winners in war.
The fact that they are typically enforced against the vanquished rather than the victors doesn't mean they aren't a "thing".
They are reasonably clearly defined by international convention, and provide at least some incentive to moderate the conduct of war in terms of impact on non-combatants. The incentive not to commit them is that if you turn out to be the vanquished, you'd probably rather slip away into exile and obscurity rather than ending up in The Hague or as a fugitive.
Should Israel deliberately target civilians? No. Do civilians have some responsibility to flee a war zone? Yes. Again Hamas are not just embedded in the civilian population, they are the government. So eradicating them is going to involve blowing a great many buildings up.
If your neighbour fires his AK47 at prayers 5 times a day, it is time to leave. Because in wartime it is always legitimate to go after CCC targets regardless of where the enemy has put them.
How exactly do 3 million people flee a war zone when they are not allowed to leave by any of the surrounding countries?
They should decide not to have Hamas as their leadership.
Even coming from you that is genuinely one of the stupidest comments any one has made on this topic.
I suppose the Catholics in Northern Ireland deserved to be bombed out and killed because they had Sinn Féin councillors.
Actually, it's worse than that, since elections in Palestine are currently suspended pending goodness-knows-what. (Which, it probably needs saying but shouldn't, is very obviously a bad thing.)
Which do you think is the case:
The poor people of Gaza are being oppressed by the horrible Hamas government and only want peace with Israel; or there is huge popular support for Hamas and their avowed intention to wipe Israel off the map.
As the BBC guy said today, there is a bit of buyers' remorse amongst the population of Gaza right now.
I think there is something of both. Gaza is full of vile people, but also people who want only a quiet life.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
Every population has its proportion of vile people and peaceful people. Sadly, it is the vile ones that tend to rise to the top when times are hard.
Few places other than Donald Trump rallies can accurately be described as full of vile people. Vile people are quite rare.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 11m Proper rhetoric from Reeves. Well written, well delivered. More or less content-free
The real takeaway from both party conferences is that the leadership of both parties recognise there is no money. And the tightening could get even worse.
Geopolitical, economic and demographic headwinds aren't great. HMG won't be able to splurge again for some time.
Indeed. As I've said before, Election 24 is 1974, not 1997.
There are broadly 4 possible outcomes to the Gaza crisis:
1. The status quo is maintained with a ceasefire or similar. It is hard to see this.
2. Gaza’s current “status” is maintained but with Israel driving Hamas from power - a possible outcome but what replaces Hamas? Not entirely convincing that Israel will take that option, if it just means the cycle begins anew.
3. Full occupation of Gaza with some form of Israeli-backed government. Does create the potential for a long and bloody occupation and guerilla warfare.
4. The ‘nuclear option’ of Gaza being largely depopulated and fully annexed.
None of these options are good ones. The fifth (negotiated peace and a lasting solution) sadly looks far too remote to even suggest.
I agree with your analysis. I reckon, with some hesitation, it will be either 3 or 4, they are the only ones that give Israel the prize it wants: assurance that October 7 is not repeated
But Jeez they are bleak
I agree with that. But 4 is the only one that doesn't eventually lead us back to where we are now. 3 will result in years of Israel's security forces being sniped at, captured, and huge cost, without any real security, and eventually a more moderate government will pull out and we are back where we are now in due course.
4 solves this particular problem for ever. Different problems may arise but they will be physically further away. I think it is what I would do if I was a hard line Israeli if I could ignore the mass international opprobrium that would follow. And - no, I don't condone it.
Agreed that, if you take a very cold-blooded hard-hearted view (and no I do not agree with it), 4 is the one with the most chance of a permanent 'resolution'.
However, what I mentioned FPT may be a better bet, namely Egypt and Israel turn Gaza into a co-ruled state. The Egyptians can then do the hard crackdown stuff on Hamas and the internal order while the Israelis give them support and fund Gaza. In Egypt's case, that would probably mean giving them tons of money / Western weapons plus recognition for Sisi and a blind eye to what he does. However, as a solution, it may work.
That's actually a pretty good solution. It is maybe the only one which doesn't end in terrible perpetual suffering for Gazans, or total ethnic cleansing of Gaza (beyond all the dreamland two state stuff)
Unfortunately I doubt Egypt will be interested, but maybe a TON of money could do it
There will be no permanent solution until Hamas abandons its aim to eliminate Israel entirely. Lose that and a solution can be found.
That aim is loudly proclaimed on the streets of London, Sydney and other western cities and wouldn't go away if Hamas did a deal, so in reality Israel's only solution is victory.
No, it isn't. Hardliners can be outflanked by talks. The IRA proclaimed loudly that nothing would satisfy them but a united Ireland, but in the end compromise was found.
That compromise entailed codifying a process to achieve a united Ireland peacefully.
How could an equivalent process for the abolition of Israel be negotiated?
Ireland isn't united. It's still two countries.
One and a half on average? All in the EU, effectively, and dual citizenship in the North, anyway (though UKG does try to ignore that, as when allowing spouses in or rather not allowing).
As ever fact bereft.
The UKG has been substantially more lenient on RoI citizens than the other way round.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 11m Proper rhetoric from Reeves. Well written, well delivered. More or less content-free
The real takeaway from both party conferences is that the leadership of both parties recognise there is no money. And the tightening could get even worse.
Geopolitical, economic and demographic headwinds aren't great. HMG won't be able to splurge again for some time.
Indeed. As I've said before, Election 24 is 1974, not 1997.
(I also think many other countries need to do this - the USA with the Native population, the descendants of slavery and many other nations that fall under the Monroe doctrine; the European imperial powers with the peoples they colonised; etc. etc.)
What would this mean in practice? That the USA annex the rest of the Americas and the European empires be reconstituted as unitary states?
I meant the truth and reconciliation in the sense of being honest about the atrocities of the project of nation building, not necessarily the reconciliation by creation of unitary states with all the peoples benefitting (although I am not ideologically opposed to a stateless world, and have reservations about a singular global state that are probably not the same as others here).
I think all the countries of the world should have to do significant historical and political work into the atrocities done in their name that are still greatly impacting us today - basically most stuff post the discovery and settlement of the Americas by the Europeans onwards: the last ~350 years of history. We need to accept that the modern position of most powerful nations and their people comes from the fact those nations did empire building and are still benefiting from that, and make reparative moves to making a more equitable world. That would also include accepting that the relatively recent invention of non permeable borders (which mostly came about in the 20th century in part to prevent Jewish asylum seekers from pogroms and Nazi persecution) is bad, that countries should not be paying back debts from their own emancipation (see Haiti) and instead should be paid reparations, and that we need to have a more internationalist politics (especially in the face of the climate catastrophe that is heading towards us). Do I think this is likely - hell no.
What does Israel do if they invade Gaza, and every Gazan rises up and tries to fight them, with rocks and sticks if necessary?
Kill them all??
Clearly they cannot do that, so it is possible this “invasion” might fail
"Clearly they cannot do that" - I mean, clearly they shouldn't do that, but it has been what successive Israeli governments have effectively been building towards. I think if the order was given, the Israeli army would do it. The question is would anyone in the international community stop them?
I am forced to note, with regret, that several of you have already broken the Law of Leon, and said things I disagree with
Given that it is early days for this new dispensation, I am prepared to be magnanimous, and ignore these tomfool remarks, or forgive them as childish errors
This lenience, however, is strictly time-limited
So when is your first drink?
There is only the next drink.
This is always my reply to the question, "how long have you been drinking?" "Hmm... about since I was fifteen?"
Apparently the list of projects that the HS2 money was going to be spent on was only illustrative !
As revealed by Mark Harper on the BBC yesterday morning
Mark Harper must be mistaken. The government are definitely investing £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast mainline. No equivocation, no caveats, Sunak announced it so it's real*. Whats more the people of North Wales are very supportive of the government for this excellent development
*Vreenack: "Its a FAAAAAAKE" Sisko: "Its REEEEAAAALLLL" etc
Why all the capitals and histrionics
I said that the announcement was welcomed in North Wales but that it is accepted it would be a long term investment project over many years
The savings on HS2 cancellation will be redirected to other schemes, almost certainly by labour, and HS2 is not being resurrected by them
Even now you are clinging to the announcement as being real.
Its a fake.
As I said, these are lies. Told by cynics. Aimed at morons. And you aren't a moron. But even now that the Secretary of State for Transport has confirmed that there is no commitment to do anything, you still insist that it is a "long term project"
It really isn't. And I am sorry that they keep getting your hopes up this way.
What does Israel do if they invade Gaza, and every Gazan rises up and tries to fight them, with rocks and sticks if necessary?
Kill them all??
Clearly they cannot do that, so it is possible this “invasion” might fail
Bibi has screwed up, he needs redemption.
Cleansing Hamas means cleansing Gaza. The siege will be the key and 2 million dead Palestinians is a big political win for Bibi, and he needs a big win. The win comes quickly, certainly before Christmas.
However Bibi's big win makes the rest of the World become a very dangerous place.
(I also think many other countries need to do this - the USA with the Native population, the descendants of slavery and many other nations that fall under the Monroe doctrine; the European imperial powers with the peoples they colonised; etc. etc.)
What would this mean in practice? That the USA annex the rest of the Americas and the European empires be reconstituted as unitary states?
I meant the truth and reconciliation in the sense of being honest about the atrocities of the project of nation building, not necessarily the reconciliation by creation of unitary states with all the peoples benefitting (although I am not ideologically opposed to a stateless world, and have reservations about a singular global state that are probably not the same as others here).
I think all the countries of the world should have to do significant historical and political work into the atrocities done in their name that are still greatly impacting us today - basically most stuff post the discovery and settlement of the Americas by the Europeans onwards: the last ~350 years of history. We need to accept that the modern position of most powerful nations and their people comes from the fact those nations did empire building and are still benefiting from that, and make reparative moves to making a more equitable world. That would also include accepting that the relatively recent invention of non permeable borders (which mostly came about in the 20th century in part to prevent Jewish asylum seekers from pogroms and Nazi persecution) is bad, that countries should not be paying back debts from their own emancipation (see Haiti) and instead should be paid reparations, and that we need to have a more internationalist politics (especially in the face of the climate catastrophe that is heading towards us). Do I think this is likely - hell no.
I take it that conquest and atrocities committed by non-Europeans are therefore to be considered legitimate.
The world is much richer (even in poor places) than 350 years ago, in large part due to the actions taken by the successful powers of that era. Most people, alive today, are beneficiaries of those actions. Conversely, most peoples' ancestors (whether or not Europeans) led shitty lives, when the world was ruled by Kings, Rajas, and Sultans.
(I also think many other countries need to do this - the USA with the Native population, the descendants of slavery and many other nations that fall under the Monroe doctrine; the European imperial powers with the peoples they colonised; etc. etc.)
What would this mean in practice? That the USA annex the rest of the Americas and the European empires be reconstituted as unitary states?
I meant the truth and reconciliation in the sense of being honest about the atrocities of the project of nation building, not necessarily the reconciliation by creation of unitary states with all the peoples benefitting (although I am not ideologically opposed to a stateless world, and have reservations about a singular global state that are probably not the same as others here).
I think all the countries of the world should have to do significant historical and political work into the atrocities done in their name that are still greatly impacting us today - basically most stuff post the discovery and settlement of the Americas by the Europeans onwards: the last ~350 years of history. We need to accept that the modern position of most powerful nations and their people comes from the fact those nations did empire building and are still benefiting from that, and make reparative moves to making a more equitable world. That would also include accepting that the relatively recent invention of non permeable borders (which mostly came about in the 20th century in part to prevent Jewish asylum seekers from pogroms and Nazi persecution) is bad, that countries should not be paying back debts from their own emancipation (see Haiti) and instead should be paid reparations, and that we need to have a more internationalist politics (especially in the face of the climate catastrophe that is heading towards us). Do I think this is likely - hell no.
The trouble comes with the mixed nature of many (most?) countries’ histories. So many have been both colonised and coloniser, even if you just limit yourself to the last 4-500 years. There are few that have been uniquely one or the other. Haiti is one example given, and most subsaharan African countries. On the only coloniser side there’s the UK, perhaps Turkey, arguably the USA and old commonwealth if you don’t consider them as having been colonial subjects of Britain, but I struggle to think of many others.
France was occupied by Prussia/Germany several times, China was occupied in large parts by Japan, as was Korea, it had to give up Hong Kong for 100 years and it still considers parts of Siberia to be occupied, but China itself is occupying Tibet, Japan itself along with Germany were occupied by the allies after the war, Russia was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany, most countries in Eastern Europe have been both empire and subject, much of the Middle East was the homeland of the Islamic empire but then subjects of first the Ottoman Empire then British and French, and so on. And how to deal with nations that were part of the leadership structure of bigger empires? Georgia gave us Stalin, Ukraine and Ukrainians played a leading role in post war Soviet power, Irish politicians and administrators in the British empire.
I really don't believe the anti-Semitism we see is a result of the existence of Israel. Zionism *may* be a compounding factor, but anti-Semitism has existed for Millenia, long before modern Israel.
If Jews were to leave Israel tomorrow and spread out to every other country in the world, the same people will find reasons to hate them. Again, as has happened for so many generations.
for this reason, I can understand why Jews feel they need a land in which they can feel safe.
I listened to a podcast the other week, which featured someone talking about his granddad, who had been in a concentration camp. His grandfather was lucky enough to be liberated, and had asked a Russian where he should go. "Don't go west," the Russian said, because there was fighting there. "Don't go east, either," he also said. Because they did not want them.
Hence, Israel.
There is a book I read years ago about the Roman attitude to the Jews and its conclusion was that many of the roots of anti-Semitism started with the Romans. They were incensed with the Jews refusal even to pay lip service to Roman requirements, which was made worse by their rebellions against Roman rule. And their response to those rebellions was very severe, more so than with other rebellious groups. That hatred of Jews was then absorbed by Christians, who added their own reasons for hating them. But it did not start with them.
Probably "Rome and Jerusalem" by Martin Goodman, which should be read in conjunction with "Pax" by Tom Holland.
Antisemitism probably begins with Antiochus Epiphanes, who attempted to force the Jews to worship the Greek Pantheon. They revolted under Judas Maccabeus.
The Romans disliked Judaism, but respected its antiquity. Caesar, Pompey, Augustus, and Tiberius were all pretty tolerant. They accepted Jewish prayers for the Emperor, in return for not requiring the Jews to sacrifice to the Imperial Cult. Things deteriorated under Caligula, and Claudius, with a succession of rotten Roman governors, until revolt exploded in 66AD.
Even then, the Jewish upper classes wanted nothing to do with the revolt, and largely supported Rome. The Roman response was utterly ruthless. Captured fighters were crucified, or fed to beasts. Towns and villages were razed, and the inhabitants slaughtered or sold as slaves. Jerusalem was besieged closely, then systematically destroyed. The survivors were all sold.
What was unusual was that the Romans refused to allow the Jews to rebuilt the Temple, something they rarely did to other conquered peoples, while still requiring all Jews to pa the tax for its upkeep. Official Roman propaganda portrayed the Jews as enemies. and it was left to Hadrian to provoke a Jewish revolt, by building a temple to Jupiter in Jerusalem, and banning circumcision, which was put down with wholesale slaughter and deportation.
Never believe the "woke" view of the Roman empire as a place of religious and racial tolerance, which is propagated by people like Catherine Nixey.
Comments
Avoiding war crimes, something I didn’t realise was controversial until I came to PB.com, doesn’t mean turning the other cheek. Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself and seek to defeat Hamas, as they are doing. But Israel does not have to abandon the rules of war to do that. Everyone should try and avoid war crimes, regardless of their opponent. That’s how law works. It’s not an optional extra. You should know that.
We need to be clear that ethnic cleansing means killing a large proportion of Gaza's population, including women and children, in order to induce them to flee into the Sinai Desert, where no doubt, more of them will die.
Do I think that the threat faced by Israel would justify such a brutal solution. Not, on the basis of what has happened to date.
That said, the behaviour is so extreme that we are probably not typical of a Labour CLP, thank god. And there are a good number of other members well to the left who are of course working constructively with the rest of us.
The other tendency is, of course, that of the neoliberal belief - that essentially an administrative state, once given enough data, can sort of technocratically make things happen. That technocratic tendency, however, actually creates a huge authoritarian nightmare. This is where Blairite ID cards come from (something that Blair is still trying to sell to SKS to do when he's in government), it's why the UK has so many goddamn security cameras and it is also why SKS is so very authoritarian in his control of the party apparatus. This is because to collect the kind of data these technocrats want you either a) have to get civilian consent or b) just surveil as much as they can. And the infrastructures that exist to collect that data can then be used for non technocratic ends.
So both of these factions in the party, for different reasons, have a tendency towards conformity and unanimity and, arguably, authoritarianism. It is interesting that, of the recent leaders of the Labour party, it is Corbyn who was most accepting of dissent (both openly and from behind closed doors) and willing to listen to others, compared with Miliband or SKS.
It really is a very funny old world, ain't it?
I said that the announcement was welcomed in North Wales but that it is accepted it would be a long term investment project over many years
The savings on HS2 cancellation will be redirected to other schemes, almost certainly by labour, and HS2 is not being resurrected by them
The choice seems to be a cruel Occupation and partial settlement by Jews, or the hideous ethnic cleansing
I struggle to see what other choices it has. All the choices are abominable and evil, but that is the sitch
How can you “negotiate” with that kind of implacable, violent hatred? Should we have “negotiated” with Hitler?
https://www.ochaopt.org/content/movement-and-out-gaza-update-covering-february-2023
They can't leave for other countries without visas, and any boats are likely to be blown out of the water by the Israeli navy, which imposes struct limits even on fishermen.
The idea that a couple of million can just decide to leave is laughable.
(I also think many other countries need to do this - the USA with the Native population, the descendants of slavery and many other nations that fall under the Monroe doctrine; the European imperial powers with the peoples they colonised; etc. etc.)
Since we've been discussing war crimes, its important to remember that proportionality is an important principle, in determining reprisals.
That's why places get partitioned.
Langold Nursery, only large nursery in the village & attached to the primary. It's our catchment primary too...
Keep us posted.
I’m not mocking your answer, just pointing out what it entails
I honestly think the Gazans would be better off fleeing to Egypt if Egypt could be persuaded to take them; If they did the world could shower them with money, enabling them to have better lives, with freedom and dignity
But then I am probably guilty of wishful thinking, too
Egypt intelligence official says Israel ignored repeated warnings of ‘something big’
Former top Israeli officers say failure to heed alerts only 1 aspect of massive intelligence and political blunders; Cairo official says Israel focused on West Bank instead of Gaza
https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/
As for your example of Germans - the number of people who actively were involved in the death machine of the Nazi state who were held accountable were pitifully few! I'm not a "flog them and hang them" type, but the relatively few Nazi officials who were hanged for the crimes of the Nazi state when literally tens of thousands of people were involved, with hundreds if not thousands of those people in significantly influential positions, goes to show when mercy is extended to people (even if it arguably shouldn't have been). Hell, the apologia in the last week or so for a Ukrainian SS member has shown a literal SS soldier more understanding and empathy than you're willing to give a person living in the Gaza strip!
(I've mentioned the Nakam a few times today, and my understanding of that and the few Nazis that were actually brought to justice comes, in part, from this podcast about Abba Kovner:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4m8C6aBMYntVmeWhgSFgV0)
NEW THREAD
"We've looked into N Wales electrification, but the numbers don't stack up. Soz."
We still don't know how much money will be saved. By the time the bleeding stumps of HSunak2 have been rendered useful and the contractors have been paid off, quite possibly no money will be saved at all.
Perhaps the government should have had a conversation about possible alternatives to HS2Manchester before pressing the "blow it all up" button. You know, democracy. Talking about things a bit.
Kill them all??
Clearly they cannot do that, so it is possible this “invasion” might fail
Geopolitical, economic and demographic headwinds aren't great. HMG won't be able to splurge again for some time.
The UKG has been substantially more lenient on RoI citizens than the other way round.
I think all the countries of the world should have to do significant historical and political work into the atrocities done in their name that are still greatly impacting us today - basically most stuff post the discovery and settlement of the Americas by the Europeans onwards: the last ~350 years of history. We need to accept that the modern position of most powerful nations and their people comes from the fact those nations did empire building and are still benefiting from that, and make reparative moves to making a more equitable world. That would also include accepting that the relatively recent invention of non permeable borders (which mostly came about in the 20th century in part to prevent Jewish asylum seekers from pogroms and Nazi persecution) is bad, that countries should not be paying back debts from their own emancipation (see Haiti) and instead should be paid reparations, and that we need to have a more internationalist politics (especially in the face of the climate catastrophe that is heading towards us). Do I think this is likely - hell no.
Even now you are clinging to the announcement as being real.
Its a fake.
As I said, these are lies. Told by cynics. Aimed at morons. And you aren't a moron. But even now that the Secretary of State for Transport has confirmed that there is no commitment to do anything, you still insist that it is a "long term project"
It really isn't. And I am sorry that they keep getting your hopes up this way.
Cleansing Hamas means cleansing Gaza. The siege will be the key and 2 million dead Palestinians is a big political win for Bibi, and he needs a big win. The win comes quickly, certainly before Christmas.
However Bibi's big win makes the rest of the World become a very dangerous place.
The world is much richer (even in poor places) than 350 years ago, in large part due to the actions taken by the successful powers of that era. Most people, alive today, are beneficiaries of those actions. Conversely, most peoples' ancestors (whether or not Europeans) led shitty lives, when the world was ruled by Kings, Rajas, and Sultans.
the other. Haiti is one example given, and most subsaharan African countries. On the only coloniser side there’s the UK, perhaps Turkey, arguably the USA and old commonwealth if you don’t consider them as having been colonial subjects of Britain, but I struggle to think of many others.
France was occupied by Prussia/Germany several times, China was occupied in large parts by Japan, as was Korea, it had to give up Hong Kong for 100 years and it still considers parts of Siberia to be occupied, but China itself is occupying Tibet, Japan itself along with Germany were occupied by the allies after the war, Russia was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany, most countries in Eastern Europe have been both empire and subject, much of the Middle East was the homeland of the Islamic empire but then subjects of first the Ottoman Empire then British and French, and so on. And how to deal with nations that were part of the leadership structure of bigger empires? Georgia gave us Stalin, Ukraine and Ukrainians played a leading role in post war Soviet power, Irish politicians and administrators in the British empire.