Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Did some intern get chatGPT to write that tweet for them?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
No.
No civilian is ever a legitimate military target. Sometimes they die unavoidably and that’s always painful.
Listening to the speech by Mr Starmer, it was non-glamourous but well-done - which is him. The best I've heard from him.
He's put his finger on a lot of weak points of the current Govt, and successfully overwritten the "Long Term Decisions" slogan with "Short Term Rishi", and positioned himself as forward looking vs backward looking, scared-of-the-future, Conservatives.
I think there will be a lot more targeted tax increases - perhaps tax breaks for Hedge Funds (if they still exist) will be reduced, for one.
His planning ideas need some thinking through, but a new lot of New Towns is a great idea; we have had a couple of runs at this (most recently under Mr Gove iirc) and backed off. Plans an locations will be around to dust off.
"The Grey Belt" idea is good, but will need careful tax measures. There are also certain quiet background trends which are perhaps in his favour - falling interest rates in the next year or two, better than widely realised economic growth, and similar. The current Tories are not good at claiming their successes effectively, so they are playing in to the caricature.
There was also some red-painted meat that I think he needs to reconsider, but only on the margins - so he will need to put some more of his nutter tendency, such as it still is, in their boxes.
I'd say he's set it up to do some dismissive rhetoric in the Commons between now and the Election.
I might even have to get out of the habit of pronouncing him "Shtarmer" as in "Shtick".
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
No.
No civilian is ever a legitimate military target. Sometimes they die unavoidably and that’s always painful.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Did some intern get chatGPT to write that tweet for them?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
I think I've reached a point where the Tories are so rubbish at the basics of politics it is making me angry. They are like some crappy team in a cup that are so below par that the match is simply a waste of everyone's time, and after the inevitable thrashing pundits say qualification rules need to change.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
They are committing to the strategy, I'll give them that.
It doesn't make a lick of sense coming from him in particular, but it'll be interesting to see if they can maintain it with a straight face.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why
Because people are trying to set limits on war like you're deciding how much money you're willing to spend when filling up your tank?
2 things are true simultaneously.
1: Hamas need to be defeated. 2: As few civilians as possible should die while achieving number 1.
All other discussion here is absurd. Talk of 2.3 million civilian casualties is utterly preposterous bullshit.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Did some intern get chatGPT to write that tweet for them?
Unfortunately, the intelligent AIs came back with "nah, you lot need a spell in opposition to calm down and distance yourselves from some of the dafter things you are saying and doing."
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
It takes very special circumstances to make it work.
2019 it worked because while Boris was PM he did not have a majority in the Commons - and enough in the country were willing to give him one and get rid of those like Grieve who were dicking around in the Commons obstructing Brexit. So he could run an election against the majority in the Commons who were successfully obstructing things until the election changed the maths.
But today? Sunak doesn't just have a majority, he has a large, healthy majority.
If he can't get the country running with a large majority, then he doesn't deserve to be in Downing Street.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
And of course the "new" government would be mostly composed of the terrible people from the "old" government that is "holding the country back".
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
Mordaunt I think killed off any leadership hopes at conference. That stand and fight speech was the bacon sandwich moment (yes yes I know pork markets didn’t stop Truss, but Mordaunt’s only route was being less bonkers and more presentable than the others).
Badenoch didn’t really do anything wrong at conference but didn’t impress either. Braverman probably had the best one, but she is so unpopular in the country and even her own party I can’t see her getting there.
I suspect the next Tory leader is probably someone who didn’t say much last week.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
And of course the "new" government would be mostly composed of the terrible people from the "old" government that is "holding the country back".
No, no, no. There are fresh faces like Hunt, who has only been at the Cabinet table for over a third of the 30 years in question.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
Mordaunt I think killed off any leadership hopes at conference. That stand and fight speech was the bacon sandwich moment (yes yes I know pork markets didn’t stop Truss, but Mordaunt’s only route was being less bonkers and more presentable than the others).
Badenoch didn’t really do anything wrong at conference but didn’t impress either. Braverman probably had the best one, but she is so unpopular in the country and even her own party I can’t see her getting there.
I suspect the next Tory leader is probably someone who didn’t say much last week.
Matt Hancock has seen your bat signal and is reconsidering his retirement.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
It takes very special circumstances to make it work.
2019 it worked because while Boris was PM he did not have a majority in the Commons - and enough in the country were willing to give him one and get rid of those like Grieve who were dicking around in the Commons obstructing Brexit. So he could run an election against the majority in the Commons who were successfully obstructing things until the election changed the maths.
But today? Sunak doesn't just have a majority, he has a large, healthy majority.
If he can't get the country running with a large majority, then he doesn't deserve to be in Downing Street.
Also, Boris had spent a lot of his time in politics running against the Conservative leadership. Mayor of London was pretty much an independent command, and he didn't spend that long as Foreign Secretary (2 years?). He could run as an outsider. Sunak's summer off doesn't really count in the same way.
(The interesting one from that point of view was Major. He joined the Cabinet in June '87, and had been a minister since 1984, but was able to persuade enough people that his government was sufficiently different to Thatcher's to reset the clock to an extent.)
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
And of course the "new" government would be mostly composed of the terrible people from the "old" government that is "holding the country back".
The contrast between the rabble of last week and the slick show put on this week in Liverpool was quite something. Yet still, after all that, with almost nobody thinking the country is going in the right direction and with a government of 13 years holding the smoking gun, close to 30% of the voting population of GB say they would put a cross by the Conservatives box in a general election. That’s the incredible tenacity of the Tory party.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
Usonians are in no position to judge cheese, since it does not exist in 99% of the USA.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
"ChatGPT, please write 100 words on Israel Palestine as a bigoted anti Arab simpleton".
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
Mordaunt I think killed off any leadership hopes at conference. That stand and fight speech was the bacon sandwich moment (yes yes I know pork markets didn’t stop Truss, but Mordaunt’s only route was being less bonkers and more presentable than the others).
Badenoch didn’t really do anything wrong at conference but didn’t impress either. Braverman probably had the best one, but she is so unpopular in the country and even her own party I can’t see her getting there.
I suspect the next Tory leader is probably someone who didn’t say much last week.
Matt Hancock has seen your bat signal and is reconsidering his retirement.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
Usonians are in no position to judge cheese, since it does not exist in 99% of the USA.
Here in Aus they have "Tasty Cheese". I no longer like cheese.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
And of course the "new" government would be mostly composed of the terrible people from the "old" government that is "holding the country back".
The contrast between the rabble of last week and the slick show put on this week in Liverpool was quite something. Yet still, after all that, with almost nobody thinking the country is going in the right direction and with a government of 13 years holding the smoking gun, close to 30% of the voting population of GB say they would put a cross by the Conservatives box in a general election. That’s the incredible tenacity of the Tory party.
That's not so strange. Labour were a shambles by 2008, but they still managed 30% in the General Election of 2010. Even people who accept it's time for a change may not want the other side to win big.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
Ffs Bart. Who would be first out of the door? The feckin' terrorists.
Yes you can eliminate Hamas, but you have to lock them in and a) eliminate everyone else in Gaza, which leads to b) a new set of p1ssed off pro- Palestinian terrorists.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
And of course the "new" government would be mostly composed of the terrible people from the "old" government that is "holding the country back".
The contrast between the rabble of last week and the slick show put on this week in Liverpool was quite something. Yet still, after all that, with almost nobody thinking the country is going in the right direction and with a government of 13 years holding the smoking gun, close to 30% of the voting population of GB say they would put a cross by the Conservatives box in a general election. That’s the incredible tenacity of the Tory party.
That's not so strange. Labour were a shambles by 2008, but they still managed 30% in the General Election of 2010. Even people who accept it's time for a change may not want the other side to win big.
I think they are each of them pretty secure in their minimum 30% vote. It took unique circumstances for the Liberals to be overtaken by Labour after the First World War. Though I suppose the greens might break through a bit once Labour has had a go, given the prevailing feeling of many young folk. Any Farage threat to the Tories seems to have passed.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
Ffs Bart. Who would be first out of the door? The feckin' terrorists.
Yes you can eliminate Hamas, but you have to lock them in and a) eliminate everyone else in Gaza, which leads to b) a new set of p1ssed off pro- Palestinian terrorists.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
Such a long term that 13 years is insufficient to do the job. Another 13 years are needed.
These last 30 years that were so badly governed according to the Tory press office. Who was in power for most of them?
Running an essentially opposition campaign when you are governing doesn't look clever, it looks really stupid and desperate.
Does make it fairly hard to campaign on anything you think was a success in your record. And the 30 year figure is extra bonkers.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
And of course the "new" government would be mostly composed of the terrible people from the "old" government that is "holding the country back".
The contrast between the rabble of last week and the slick show put on this week in Liverpool was quite something. Yet still, after all that, with almost nobody thinking the country is going in the right direction and with a government of 13 years holding the smoking gun, close to 30% of the voting population of GB say they would put a cross by the Conservatives box in a general election. That’s the incredible tenacity of the Tory party.
It's like a kind of Stockholm Syndrome whereby minds have been kidnapped by the Tories and despite the mistreatment remain in hock. Brexit possibly a factor in setting their floor. They got it done and that still means a lot to many.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
I was on a call with a former head of Mossad who was more reasonable than some of the folks on here.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
He kicked off many months ago with "Boris looks like Charles Atlas".
Should have been nipped in the bud there and then.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
Usonians are in no position to judge cheese, since it does not exist in 99% of the USA.
Here in Aus they have "Tasty Cheese". I no longer like cheese.
I was once stranded in Geneva for Christmas, After getting lost and wandering for many miles I found an open bar.
It was full of tables of people eating variations of Fondue.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
Except you're misrepresenting things, I haven't once advocated hundreds of thousands of innocents.
I advocate Hamas be utterly destroyed, unless or until they all cease fighting and surrender. With as few civilian casualties as are necessary to achieve that.
Which is entirely legitimate warfare. Civilians can not be a target, but if they get caught in the crossfire, that's a tragedy that is part and parcel of warfare.
Russia targets civilians deliberately, that's the difference.
Collateral damage is unfortunate but necessary, deliberate targeting is not.
Most people don't like the sort of people who do that sort of protest, and Starmer's response was pretty much spot-on. Tell the dingbat why he's a dingbat, take off his jacket, and carry on. And a nicely ironed shirt to attract the "he may be a bit of a lefty but he's respectable enough to marry my daughter" demographic.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
I think I've reached a point where the Tories are so rubbish at the basics of politics it is making me angry. They are like some crappy team in a cup that are so below par that the match is simply a waste of everyone's time, and after the inevitable thrashing pundits say qualification rules need to change.
I hope you’re not suggesting that conservatives = England?
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
Usonians are in no position to judge cheese, since it does not exist in 99% of the USA.
Here in Aus they have "Tasty Cheese". I no longer like cheese.
I was once stranded in Geneva for Christmas, After getting lost and wandering for many miles I found an open bar.
It was full of tables of people eating variations of Fondue.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
Except you're misrepresenting things, I haven't once advocated hundreds of thousands of innocents.
I advocate Hamas be utterly destroyed, unless or until they all cease fighting and surrender. With as few civilian casualties as are necessary to achieve that.
Which is entirely legitimate warfare. Civilians can not be a target, but if they get caught in the crossfire, that's a tragedy that is part and parcel of warfare.
Russia targets civilians deliberately, that's the difference.
Collateral damage is unfortunate but necessary, deliberate targeting is not.
Semantics. And in the case of Israel also historically untrue. The use of white phosphorus in Gaza and the indescriminate bombing of buildings irrepsctive of civilian casualties puts the lie to those claims.
And if you start from a position of accepting and excusing civilian casualties as justifiable then all you are doing is trying to fool yourself (or others) when in fact you are no better than the Russians or Serbs.
Incidentally Richard, its easy for you to say 'things have changed' as we aren't in an existential threat for our very survival. However we keep Trident to literally threaten others with absolute destruction if we ever are existentially threatened.
Israel are in an existential fight for their survival, against those who wish to seem them annihilated.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Most people don't like the sort of people who do that sort of protest, and Starmer's response was pretty much spot-on. Tell the dingbat why he's a dingbat, take off his jacket, and carry on. And a nicely ironed shirt to attract the "he may be a bit of a lefty but he's respectable enough to marry my daughter" demographic.
And a light dusting of stardust remained on his shoulder. That's the end of the "dull" trope methinks.
Most people don't like the sort of people who do that sort of protest, and Starmer's response was pretty much spot-on. Tell the dingbat why he's a dingbat, take off his jacket, and carry on. And a nicely ironed shirt to attract the "he may be a bit of a lefty but he's respectable enough to marry my daughter" demographic.
He had some serious composure carrying on with the speech. The guy was holding onto him.
Given the current political climate with Israel/Gaza, you wouldn't have blamed him for taking a breather before coming back on stage.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
However, I don't think there are any options that don't involve dead civilians.
Plainly, Isreal isn't going to say "no hard feelings", after driving Hamas back into Gaza. They will wish to take the fight to the enemy.
The issue is how to minimise civilian casualties. Cutting off power is probably the option that most clearly complies with international law (which does after all, permit economic sanctions), but in terms of human suffering, it's probably the cruelest option of all.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
The Tories don't particularly deserve to have any good news atm, but I've got a funny feeling they're going to narrowly hold both of the by-elections next week.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
He kicked off many months ago with "Boris looks like Charles Atlas".
Should have been nipped in the bud there and then.
Missed that. Didn't realise who I was dealing with 😮
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
Usonians are in no position to judge cheese, since it does not exist in 99% of the USA.
Here in Aus they have "Tasty Cheese". I no longer like cheese.
I was once stranded in Geneva for Christmas, After getting lost and wandering for many miles I found an open bar.
It was full of tables of people eating variations of Fondue.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
All these arguments could have been used against fighting World War 2 against the Nazis. Do you think that was wrong?
Oh God here we go . That was clearly a different situation. It’s clear that Hamas doesn’t have the capability to invade Israel and comparing this with WW2 is being done to give those making the comparison a free pass as the bodies pile up .
Err didnt hamas just invade israel....do they have enough to conquer and hold it no...but they definitely invaded it
I am very supportive of Israel's right to defend itself against a brutal terrorist attack, but the fact is every lost civilian life on each side is a tragedy - particularly children.
I find the threads full of posts indifferent to this suffering to be tasteless. I appreciate there is no good solution to this situation, but it sometimes borders on reveling in high numbers of potential civilian casualties.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
Ffs Bart. Who would be first out of the door? The feckin' terrorists.
Yes you can eliminate Hamas, but you have to lock them in and a) eliminate everyone else in Gaza, which leads to b) a new set of p1ssed off pro- Palestinian terrorists.
Let the women and children leave then
How many should we take as refugees?
Or should we fly them straight to Rwanda?
Usually they should be resettled as nearby as possible.
But you don’t want a practical solution. You just want to say nasty things about the Israelis when there are the inevitable civilian casualties
Incidentally Richard, its easy for you to say 'things have changed' as we aren't in an existential threat for our very survival. However we keep Trident to literally threaten others with absolute destruction if we ever are existentially threatened.
Israel are in an existential fight for their survival, against those who wish to seem them annihilated.
We keep trident on the basis that we know if we ever have to use it we would already have failed. No one who should be taken seriously advocates using it as a first strike weapon.
No one denies that Hamas are fundementally evil (well no one except some loony lefties like Corbyn and Owen Jones)* and want to destroy Israel but we still have a position that there are things which are beyond the pale and which civilised society cannot accept. Except you apparently don't believe that. In which case everything you have said about Russia over the last year has been pure hypocrisy.
*there may be some loony righties who also think this but I just haven't heard any of them yet.
I saw the headlines on social media about the decapitated babies this afternoon and haven’t been able to engage with the news ever since. Is this a legit story or a WW1 Hun Eat Babies caricature? I have no intention of seeking out the proof for myself but suspect some here might know by now.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
Usonians are in no position to judge cheese, since it does not exist in 99% of the USA.
Here in Aus they have "Tasty Cheese". I no longer like cheese.
I was once stranded in Geneva for Christmas, After getting lost and wandering for many miles I found an open bar.
It was full of tables of people eating variations of Fondue.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
So the current population of Israel is circa !0m. On your terms what is your maximum number of collateral casualties across the Middle East to preserve the safety of that 10m to go about their daily business unhindered? I don't know, but I am interested if you have a number in mind.
This is a bloody stupid discussion.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
Wonder why.
We northerners drive Americans don't like cheese Externalities don't exist 2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
He kicked off many months ago with "Boris looks like Charles Atlas".
Should have been nipped in the bud there and then.
Missed that. Didn't realise who I was dealing with 😮
I saw the headlines on social media about the decapitated babies this afternoon and haven’t been able to engage with the news ever since. Is this a legit story or a WW1 Hun Eat Babies caricature? I have no intention of seeking out the proof for myself but suspect some here might know by now.
Jeremy Bowen was in the village where it supposedly happened but had the inate decency not to lift the cover on the body to see if it were true. I don't doubt it personally.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Worse than that shooting all males on sight would be sexist women and trans people can be terrorists too
Watch to the end. Sophy finally has to intervene to end the "discussion" as it gets more and more emotional and angry.
So he is resorting to his usual tactics, I was been shut down and bullied.....wahhh wahhh wahhh....when it was him being a total arsehole talking over everybody. What a shit.
He should be tweeting an apology for his behaviour. It was overbearing and inappropriate. Margaret Hodge was clearly very upset and for good reason. There are ways of pointing out there are civilians being killed in Gaza, but that wasn't the way of doing it. Now claiming Hodge is a liar, lovely.
I saw the headlines on social media about the decapitated babies this afternoon and haven’t been able to engage with the news ever since. Is this a legit story or a WW1 Hun Eat Babies caricature? I have no intention of seeking out the proof for myself but suspect some here might know by now.
We dont know. Yes it appears some on the ground reporting by multiple journos at one kibbutz suggests some beheaded bodies but we do not know 100% if children were amongst them.
Incidentally Richard, its easy for you to say 'things have changed' as we aren't in an existential threat for our very survival. However we keep Trident to literally threaten others with absolute destruction if we ever are existentially threatened.
Israel are in an existential fight for their survival, against those who wish to seem them annihilated.
We keep trident on the basis that we know if we ever have to use it we would already have failed. No one who should be taken seriously advocates using it as a first strike weapon.
No one denies that Hamas are fundementally evil (well no one except some loony lefties like Corbyn and Owen Jones)* and want to destroy Israel but we still have a position that there are things which are beyond the pale and which civilised society cannot accept. Except you apparently don't believe that. In which case everything you have said about Russia over the last year has been pure hypocrisy.
*there may be some loony righties who also think this but I just haven't heard any of them yet.
You seem confused. I have said repeatedly that civilians should NOT be targeted.
Accidental collateral damage in wartime is different to deliberate targeting.
Hamas must be defeated. I would like to see anything that allows that while keeping innocent civilians as low as is feasible.
I saw the headlines on social media about the decapitated babies this afternoon and haven’t been able to engage with the news ever since. Is this a legit story or a WW1 Hun Eat Babies caricature? I have no intention of seeking out the proof for myself but suspect some here might know by now.
The WWI atrocity stories were mainly true, as it turned out.
If anything, people are too sceptical about believing in atrocities, rather than too gullible.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
However, I don't think there are any options that don't involve dead civilians.
Plainly, Isreal isn't going to say "no hard feelings", after driving Hamas back into Gaza. They will wish to take the fight to the enemy.
The issue is how to minimise civilian casualties. Cutting off power is probably the option that most clearly complies with international law (which does after all, permit economic sanctions), but in terms of human suffering, it's probably the cruelest option of all.
Cutting off food and water would be a war crime under international law if the Palestinians were recognised as a separate state. The fact that they are not means it is only 'legally' not a war crime.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
However, I don't think there are any options that don't involve dead civilians.
Plainly, Isreal isn't going to say "no hard feelings", after driving Hamas back into Gaza. They will wish to take the fight to the enemy.
The issue is how to minimise civilian casualties. Cutting off power is probably the option that most clearly complies with international law (which does after all, permit economic sanctions), but in terms of human suffering, it's probably the cruelest option of all.
Cutting off food and water would be a war crime under international law if the Palestinians were recognised as a separate state. The fact that they are not means it is only 'legally' not a war crime.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
However, I don't think there are any options that don't involve dead civilians.
Plainly, Isreal isn't going to say "no hard feelings", after driving Hamas back into Gaza. They will wish to take the fight to the enemy.
The issue is how to minimise civilian casualties. Cutting off power is probably the option that most clearly complies with international law (which does after all, permit economic sanctions), but in terms of human suffering, it's probably the cruelest option of all.
Cutting off food and water would be a war crime under international law if the Palestinians were recognised as a separate state. The fact that they are not means it is only 'legally' not a war crime.
Hamas declared war, they are the gazan government. Do you believe for example that poland should have provided nazi germany with food and water after they invaded?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
"ChatGPT, please write 100 words on Israel Palestine as a bigoted anti Arab simpleton".
Im surprised no one has considered the possibility I suggested the other day which is Hamas militiamen will melt away once the Israelis go in. Its very possible they will stick some herberts out to put up a bit of a fight but others, senior members and some of the core 'elite' fighters will be across those those tunnels to Egypt.
A big problem is a lot of their best are dead already.
Incidentally Richard, its easy for you to say 'things have changed' as we aren't in an existential threat for our very survival. However we keep Trident to literally threaten others with absolute destruction if we ever are existentially threatened.
Israel are in an existential fight for their survival, against those who wish to seem them annihilated.
We keep trident on the basis that we know if we ever have to use it we would already have failed. No one who should be taken seriously advocates using it as a first strike weapon.
No one denies that Hamas are fundementally evil (well no one except some loony lefties like Corbyn and Owen Jones)* and want to destroy Israel but we still have a position that there are things which are beyond the pale and which civilised society cannot accept. Except you apparently don't believe that. In which case everything you have said about Russia over the last year has been pure hypocrisy.
*there may be some loony righties who also think this but I just haven't heard any of them yet.
You seem confused. I have said repeatedly that civilians should NOT be targeted.
Accidental collateral damage in wartime is different to deliberate targeting.
Hamas must be defeated. I would like to see anything that allows that while keeping innocent civilians as low as is feasible.
You have advocated Israel doing anything and everything necessary to defeat Hamas including the complete destruction of Gaza. When people have pointed out that this will undoubtedly entail the deaths of thousands of civilians your attitude is basically one of 'shit happens'
You may fool yourself but you don't fool anyone else.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Incidentally Richard, its easy for you to say 'things have changed' as we aren't in an existential threat for our very survival. However we keep Trident to literally threaten others with absolute destruction if we ever are existentially threatened.
Israel are in an existential fight for their survival, against those who wish to seem them annihilated.
We keep trident on the basis that we know if we ever have to use it we would already have failed. No one who should be taken seriously advocates using it as a first strike weapon.
No one denies that Hamas are fundementally evil (well no one except some loony lefties like Corbyn and Owen Jones)* and want to destroy Israel but we still have a position that there are things which are beyond the pale and which civilised society cannot accept. Except you apparently don't believe that. In which case everything you have said about Russia over the last year has been pure hypocrisy.
*there may be some loony righties who also think this but I just haven't heard any of them yet.
You seem confused. I have said repeatedly that civilians should NOT be targeted.
Accidental collateral damage in wartime is different to deliberate targeting.
Hamas must be defeated. I would like to see anything that allows that while keeping innocent civilians as low as is feasible.
You have advocated Israel doing anything and everything necessary to defeat Hamas including the complete destruction of Gaza. When people have pointed out that this will undoubtedly entail the deaths of thousands of civilians your attitude is basically one of 'shit happens'
You may fool yourself but you don't fool anyone else.
Gazans are pretty much hamas supporters on the whole.
Comments
When the UK invaded Afghanistan or Iraq how many Iraqi or Afghani civilians died in the conflict, versus how many British civilians?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted
I didn't say to target them. 🤦♂️
He's put his finger on a lot of weak points of the current Govt, and successfully overwritten the "Long Term Decisions" slogan with "Short Term Rishi", and positioned himself as forward looking vs backward looking, scared-of-the-future, Conservatives.
I think there will be a lot more targeted tax increases - perhaps tax breaks for Hedge Funds (if they still exist) will be reduced, for one.
His planning ideas need some thinking through, but a new lot of New Towns is a great idea; we have had a couple of runs at this (most recently under Mr Gove iirc) and backed off. Plans an locations will be around to dust off.
"The Grey Belt" idea is good, but will need careful tax measures. There are also certain quiet background trends which are perhaps in his favour - falling interest rates in the next year or two, better than widely realised economic growth, and similar. The current Tories are not good at claiming their successes effectively, so they are playing in to the caricature.
There was also some red-painted meat that I think he needs to reconsider, but only on the margins - so he will need to put some more of his nutter tendency, such as it still is, in their boxes.
I'd say he's set it up to do some dismissive rhetoric in the Commons between now and the Election.
I might even have to get out of the habit of pronouncing him "Shtarmer" as in "Shtick".
Overall, the first time I have been impressed.
https://twitter.com/maria_drutska/status/1711817921503080587
You are disgusting and have clearly never, thankfully, considered these issues in the real world.
Since when have wars had maximum numbers?
Are we supposed to think if the limit is 100k that 99,999 civilian casualties is perfectly reasonable, but 100,000 is wrong?
The number of casualties should be as low as is reasonably possible, while ensuring the war is won. Clear?
It doesn't make a lick of sense coming from him in particular, but it'll be interesting to see if they can maintain it with a straight face.
We northerners drive
Americans don't like cheese
Externalities don't exist
2 million dead Palestinians are worth it
An escalating pattern of nonsense.
For those who don't know - RAF Fauld ordnance depot *was* in Staffordshire. The round thing in this Google view is where it used to be.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hanbury,+Burton-on-Trent/@52.846617,-1.7156774,653a,35y,270h,57.82t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x487a04df9ee5a185:0x34db762b7cc5735c!8m2!3d52.846595!4d-1.7452479!16s/m/05pbv6b?entry=ttu
2 things are true simultaneously.
1: Hamas need to be defeated.
2: As few civilians as possible should die while achieving number 1.
All other discussion here is absurd. Talk of 2.3 million civilian casualties is utterly preposterous bullshit.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RtgkM1UJZ6bZJePi6?g_st=ic
The site was hit by a meteorite? That's some extraordinary back luck!
Edit: but not to worry!
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
Almost as bonkers as Mordaunt on stage telling us not to go back to the 80s. The 80s which famously had a Labour Government….
2019 it worked because while Boris was PM he did not have a majority in the Commons - and enough in the country were willing to give him one and get rid of those like Grieve who were dicking around in the Commons obstructing Brexit. So he could run an election against the majority in the Commons who were successfully obstructing things until the election changed the maths.
But today? Sunak doesn't just have a majority, he has a large, healthy majority.
If he can't get the country running with a large majority, then he doesn't deserve to be in Downing Street.
Badenoch didn’t really do anything wrong at conference but didn’t impress either. Braverman probably had the best one, but she is so unpopular in the country and even her own party I can’t see her getting there.
I suspect the next Tory leader is probably someone who didn’t say much last week.
(The interesting one from that point of view was Major. He joined the Cabinet in June '87, and had been a minister since 1984, but was able to persuade enough people that his government was sufficiently different to Thatcher's to reset the clock to an extent.)
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
Or should we fly them straight to Rwanda?
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Not least because no jacket allowed in clinic areas.
Should have been nipped in the bud there and then.
It was full of tables of people eating variations of Fondue.
And a very sweaty Elvis impersonator.
"Dog Days" never felt so real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2018_film)
I advocate Hamas be utterly destroyed, unless or until they all cease fighting and surrender. With as few civilian casualties as are necessary to achieve that.
Which is entirely legitimate warfare. Civilians can not be a target, but if they get caught in the crossfire, that's a tragedy that is part and parcel of warfare.
Russia targets civilians deliberately, that's the difference.
Collateral damage is unfortunate but necessary, deliberate targeting is not.
Most people don't like the sort of people who do that sort of protest, and Starmer's response was pretty much spot-on. Tell the dingbat why he's a dingbat, take off his jacket, and carry on. And a nicely ironed shirt to attract the "he may be a bit of a lefty but he's respectable enough to marry my daughter" demographic.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
And if you start from a position of accepting and excusing civilian casualties as justifiable then all you are doing is trying to fool yourself (or others) when in fact you are no better than the Russians or Serbs.
Israel are in an existential fight for their survival, against those who wish to seem them annihilated.
Given the current political climate with Israel/Gaza, you wouldn't have blamed him for taking a breather before coming back on stage.
Plainly, Isreal isn't going to say "no hard feelings", after driving Hamas back into Gaza. They will wish to take the fight to the enemy.
The issue is how to minimise civilian casualties. Cutting off power is probably the option that most clearly complies with international law (which does after all, permit economic sanctions), but in terms of human suffering, it's probably the cruelest option of all.
I find the threads full of posts indifferent to this suffering to be tasteless. I appreciate there is no good solution to this situation, but it sometimes borders on reveling in high numbers of potential civilian casualties.
But you don’t want a practical solution. You just want to say nasty things about the Israelis when there are the inevitable civilian casualties
No one denies that Hamas are fundementally evil (well no one except some loony lefties like Corbyn and Owen Jones)* and want to destroy Israel but we still have a position that there are things which are beyond the pale and which civilised society cannot accept. Except you apparently don't believe that. In which case everything you have said about Russia over the last year has been pure hypocrisy.
*there may be some loony righties who also think this but I just haven't heard any of them yet.
Watch to the end. Sophy finally has to intervene to end the "discussion" as it gets more and more emotional and angry.
He should be tweeting an apology for his behaviour. It was overbearing and inappropriate. Margaret Hodge was clearly very upset and for good reason. There are ways of pointing out there are civilians being killed in Gaza, but that wasn't the way of doing it. Now claiming Hodge is a liar, lovely.
Accidental collateral damage in wartime is different to deliberate targeting.
Hamas must be defeated. I would like to see anything that allows that while keeping innocent civilians as low as is feasible.
If anything, people are too sceptical about believing in atrocities, rather than too gullible.
AFAIK blockades are entirely legal?
A big problem is a lot of their best are dead already.
You may fool yourself but you don't fool anyone else.
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety