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.
Shit does happen in war.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine since the Russians latest invasion began. So should Ukraine have not fought back?
You advocating Israel just surrender to Hamas and not fight back are no better than the Russian trolls saying Ukraine should surrender to avoid casualties.
Casualties are a regrettable thing that happens in war, but Russia/Hamas need to be defeated. Ukraine/Israel need to be victorious. Even if casualties happen.
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.
I always presumed the real brains / senior members spend a limited amount of time in Gaza itself. Bit risky that Israel might decide to liquidate you at any moment.
Watch to the end. Sophy finally has to intervene to end the "discussion" as it gets more and more emotional and angry.
Just for accuracy, in the interview Owen Jones condemns the Hamas onslaught at the weekend without any equivocation, referring to his 'horror and disgust' at the 'indescribable' atrocities carried out on Israeli citizens. So it's not quite fair to say he 'supported' the Hamas actions, as some have been saying on here.
Watch to the end. Sophy finally has to intervene to end the "discussion" as it gets more and more emotional and angry.
Just for accuracy, in the interview Owen Jones condemns the Hamas onslaught at the weekend without any equivocation, referring to his 'horror and disgust' at the 'indescribable' atrocities carried out on Israeli citizens. So it's not quite fair to say he 'supported' the Hamas actions, as some have been saying on here.
Its the classic, starts off with that for the opening sentence, pause...BUT....and a diatribe of anti-Israel stuff. And anybody who tries to say hold on a moment gets talked over.
Now it appears he is doubling down on this and being selective over the clips.
At best he read the room wrong and overstepped the mark and should be apologising to Margaret Hodge, instead he is calling her a liar.
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 Gazans just broke out and killed every Israeli Jew they could find. In the cruellest way possible. Up to and including shooting toddlers in the head and beheading babies. It is clear that they would kill every Jew in Israel - and possibly beyond -given half a chance
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
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.
Hamas got 44% of the vote the last time there was a vote, so less than half. Fatah won 3 of 5 districts in Gaza in those elections.
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.
I can't see how more violence is going to solve anything.
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.
Hamas got 44% of the vote the last time there was a vote, so less than half. Fatah won 3 of 5 districts in Gaza in those elections.
What polling knowledge or personal experience of Gaza do you have for your statement?
Wow only 44% voted for hamas. That doesn't preclude a percentage of people not voting for them because they though hamas were a bit soft on the israel question....44% is a lot of gazans. Would you object if the idf went in an kill 44% of Gazans? I am betting you would
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.
I can't see how more violence is going to solve anything.
It isn't, but breaking that cycle of violence is not an easy matter.
@BartholomewRoberts is getting a lot of grief on here. I can see why, he can be deeply annoying to argue with
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
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.
Shit does happen in war.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine since the Russians latest invasion began. So should Ukraine have not fought back?
You advocating Israel just surrender to Hamas and not fight back are no better than the Russian trolls saying Ukraine should surrender to avoid casualties.
Casualties are a regrettable thing that happens in war, but Russia/Hamas need to be defeated. Ukraine/Israel need to be victorious. Even if casualties happen.
Nope I am not advocating that. But I am also saying that the plan of flatten Gaza and drive them into the sea and fuck the consequences is not a viable plan. What it does is achieve exactly what Hamas wants which is to turn world opinion against Israel.
You think it can't happen? Look at how world opinion changed against the US from the weeks after 9/11 to a decade later.
I said on here a couple of days ago that Hamas actually wants Israel to follow the route you advocate. Not because they think they can win militarily but because they want Israel to overreact and kill thousands of civilians. The more Israel kill the better for Hamas, even if they lose Gaza. And that fuckwit Bibi is going to give them exactly what they want.
Your views are not only morally abhorant, they are strategically stupid.
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.
Hamas got 44% of the vote the last time there was a vote, so less than half. Fatah won 3 of 5 districts in Gaza in those elections.
What polling knowledge or personal experience of Gaza do you have for your statement?
Wow only 44% voted for hamas. That doesn't preclude a percentage of people not voting for them because they though hamas were a bit soft on the israel question....44% is a lot of gazans. Would you object if the idf went in an kill 44% of Gazans? I am betting you would
So you accept that a majority of Gazans did not support Hamas in 2006, before the coup.
A number of districts in the West Bank also voted for Hamas. Should they be exterminated too?
What percentage of the expelled refugees should we accept?
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.
I can't see how more violence is going to solve anything.
It isn't, but breaking that cycle of violence is not an easy matter.
Short of obliterating the entire middle east maybe we should just build a wall around it. not let anyone in or out then check back every 50 years or so to see if they have made peace.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where fighting age males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 Hamas fighters and many more men who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plans to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to them.
I for one advocate letting them out, if anyone wants to offer safe haven.
All flights at London Luton Airport have been suspended because of a large fire in one of its car parks.
London Luton Airport always amusing
If HS2 gets built, London Birmingham Airport is about the same journey.
Except that Brum Interchange will be quite a distance from the BHX terminals. I don't know what plans exist to transfer passengers efficiently across the M42 but I suspect in the end it will be standing room only on a bendy bus.
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.
But if Gaza were a State, then de jure or de facto, a state of war would exist between the two, and blockade is lawful in war.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 Hamas fighters and many more men who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plans to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to them.
I'm hazarding a guess that
1. You aren't an international lawyer, either, so you don't know
2. No one knows, this is sui generis
3. It doesn't matter anyway, reality is changing on the ground moment by moment
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grim, and do we need to drama about that? The likes of HBO at its prime didn't shy away from such scenes, but obviously it wasn't the whole premise of the series.
@BartholomewRoberts is getting a lot of grief on here. I can see why, he can be deeply annoying to argue with
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
I am waiting for the world to catch up with what happens after Israel has resolved Gaza to its satisfaction. One assumes the diplomatic process over Iranian nukes is dead. Or at least the Israelis will see it as such. Which logically leads only one way.
@BartholomewRoberts is getting a lot of grief on here. I can see why, he can be deeply annoying to argue with
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
I am waiting for the world to catch up with what happens after Israel has resolved Gaza to its satisfaction. One assumes the diplomatic process over Iranian nukes is dead. Or at least the Israelis will see it as such. Which logically leads only one way.
Yes, I fear this is going to spread, to a direct confrontation with Iran
It has an awful inevitability about it. I recall that Threads begins with a crisis in Iran....
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.
Hamas got 44% of the vote the last time there was a vote, so less than half. Fatah won 3 of 5 districts in Gaza in those elections.
What polling knowledge or personal experience of Gaza do you have for your statement?
Wow only 44% voted for hamas. That doesn't preclude a percentage of people not voting for them because they though hamas were a bit soft on the israel question....44% is a lot of gazans. Would you object if the idf went in an kill 44% of Gazans? I am betting you would
So you accept that a majority of Gazans did not support Hamas in 2006, before the coup.
A number of districts in the West Bank also voted for Hamas. Should they be exterminated too?
What percentage of the expelled refugees should we accept?
We should not accept any, not because they are the wrong colour or wrong faith but because they believe in a culture of "killing your neighbour" is fine....not just palestinians but israelis too. Almost half of Gaza voted for hamas a good ten percent more would have voted for more hardline candidates. Gazans are not the innocents you are trying to claim. The same goes for the israelis that voted for hard line parties
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.
How do you know? They haven't had an election since 2006 and Hamas are notorious for liking killing off their oppponents within Gaza almost as much as they like killing Israelis.
Yes they have significant support. But neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how much of the Gaza population that represents.
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grim, and do we need to drama about that? The likes of HBO at its prime didn't shy away from such scenes, but obviously it wasn't the whole premise of the series.
The most enlightening TV programme wrt Jimmy Savile is probably the Louis Theroux documentary from the year 2000. Brave of the BBC to put it on iPlayer, because it wasn't available anywhere to watch for a while about a year ago.
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grim, and do we need to drama about that? The likes of HBO at its prime didn't shy away from such scenes, but it wasn't the whole premise of the series.
Goodness. There is quite enough sadness in the world to watch a dramatisation of a real life paedophile for entertainment. Monty Don and the crew planting daffodils is more the ticket right now.
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grim, and do we need to drama about that? The likes of HBO at its prime didn't shy away from such scenes, but obviously it wasn't the whole premise of the series.
It is watchable if sometimes dark and Coogan captures Savile brilliantly
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grime, and do we need to drama about that?
Coogan is a very versatile actor, though will always be remembered best for his alter ego Alan Partridge. He was great as Stan Laurel too in Stan and Ollie.
I think that the sexual abuse is all off screen, ending at the moment where the victim realises what is about to happen.
The programme itself is disjointed by the flips between the drama and the vintage clips of the real Savile and the interviews. Maybe it gets more coherent later on, but I think it would have worked better as a pure drama, perhaps with an accompanying documentary.
All flights at London Luton Airport have been suspended because of a large fire in one of its car parks.
London Luton Airport always amusing
If HS2 gets built, London Birmingham Airport is about the same journey.
Except that Brum Interchange will be quite a distance from the BHX terminals. I don't know what plans exist to transfer passengers efficiently across the M42 but I suspect in the end it will be standing room only on a bendy bus.
The world's first passenger MagLev system was in operation at Birmingham Airport to transport people from the terminal to the train station from 1984 to 1995, but had to close when they couldn't source parts to keep it going. Shows how we've gone backwards in terms of using new technology since hten.
@BartholomewRoberts is getting a lot of grief on here. I can see why, he can be deeply annoying to argue with
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
I am waiting for the world to catch up with what happens after Israel has resolved Gaza to its satisfaction. One assumes the diplomatic process over Iranian nukes is dead. Or at least the Israelis will see it as such. Which logically leads only one way.
Yes, I fear this is going to spread, to a direct confrontation with Iran
It has an awful inevitability about it. I recall that Threads begins with a crisis in Iran....
Not seen it and don’t intend to. But yes, there is a case that we have been living in WW3 since Feb last year. Theatre of war and the level of barbarity is spreading. Deterrence is cheaper the earlier you do it Joe. Get your shit together.
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.
I always presumed the real brains / senior members spend a limited amount of time in Gaza itself. Bit risky that Israel might decide to liquidate you at any moment.
@BartholomewRoberts is getting a lot of grief on here. I can see why, he can be deeply annoying to argue with
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
'We' worried enough to ask 'Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?'
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.
Thank you for a serious answer to the question.
As you say though, it’s moot; Israel will do what they do - and they aren’t going to sit on their hands for a week.
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.
Hamas got 44% of the vote the last time there was a vote, so less than half. Fatah won 3 of 5 districts in Gaza in those elections.
What polling knowledge or personal experience of Gaza do you have for your statement?
Wow only 44% voted for hamas. That doesn't preclude a percentage of people not voting for them because they though hamas were a bit soft on the israel question....44% is a lot of gazans. Would you object if the idf went in an kill 44% of Gazans? I am betting you would
So you accept that a majority of Gazans did not support Hamas in 2006, before the coup.
A number of districts in the West Bank also voted for Hamas. Should they be exterminated too?
What percentage of the expelled refugees should we accept?
We should not accept any, not because they are the wrong colour or wrong faith but because they believe in a culture of "killing your neighbour" is fine....not just palestinians but israelis too. Almost half of Gaza voted for hamas a good ten percent more would have voted for more hardline candidates. Gazans are not the innocents you are trying to claim. The same goes for the israelis that voted for hard line parties
I have never claimed that all Gazans are innocents, but neither do I believe them all guilty.
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.
But if Gaza were a State, then de jure or de facto, a state of war would exist between the two, and blockade is lawful in war.
Awkwardly, though, if Gaza was a State then it would have been Israel who implicitly declared war by blockading Gaza's port.
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.
How do you know? They haven't had an election since 2006 and Hamas are notorious for liking killing off their oppponents within Gaza almost as much as they like killing Israelis.
Yes they have significant support. But neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how much of the Gaza population that represents.
We go by the last election 44% of gazans voted for hamas, 41% for fatah who have similar views on israel but slightly more moderate I grant you thats 85% of gazans
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grime, and do we need to drama about that?
Coogan is a very versatile actor, though will always be remembered best for his alter ego Alan Partridge. He was great as Stan Laurel too in Stan and Ollie.
I think that the sexual abuse is all off screen, ending at the moment where the victim realises what is about to happen.
The programme itself is disjointed by the flips between the drama and the vintage clips of the real Savile and the interviews. Maybe it gets more coherent later on, but I think it would have worked better as a pure drama, perhaps with an accompanying documentary.
I think this is the problem. It could be any drama, in fact its more sanitised than say a HBO show from the noughties.
Do I want to see more graphic reconstruction, no, but then its tricky, because if you go too softly / sanitised, I don't think the pure evil of Savile comes through....instead it all seems a bit like "casting cough" stuff, plenty of normal drama include scenes of sexual assault, when from what we know he was far far worse than a Weinstein type.
In fact in one scene he reels off other famous people who had young teenage wives / girlfriends e.g. John Peel and mention of girls wanting to go to dressing rooms of other stars.
For me, if you want to do this, it has been a "teaching / learning" exercise to really hit home what an evil man he was and how the system allowed him to get away with this. If not, don't do it.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
@BartholomewRoberts is getting a lot of grief on here. I can see why, he can be deeply annoying to argue with
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
'We' worried enough to ask 'Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?'
Did you?
How many Israelis are you ok with Hamas killing before you think that it's OK for Israel to fight to defeat them? 6 million?
Ordinarily civilians have a choice either to stay and hope for the best or flee but the latter isn’t currently an option .
So pressure needs to be placed on Egypt to open their border. I find it hard to believe people would be supporting a scenario where civilians are trapped with no food or water and are forced to stay and be killed .
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.
Thank you for a serious answer to the question.
As you say though, it’s moot; Israel will do what they do - and they aren’t going to sit on their hands for a week.
I think a ground invasion may well be a week away. On Newsnight it was reported that further Hamas men had crossed the border into Israel, so the border is not yet secure it seems.The IDF are clearly not yet prepared, and without clear intelligence could well be walking into a trap. I think it will be continued air bombardment for some days yet.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grim, and do we need to drama about that? The likes of HBO at its prime didn't shy away from such scenes, but it wasn't the whole premise of the series.
Goodness. There is quite enough sadness in the world to watch a dramatisation of a real life paedophile for entertainment. Monty Don and the crew planting daffodils is more the ticket right now.
Yeah, quite agree
I'm watching mainly sci-fi and cooking shows at the mo. I, like most of mankind, cannot bear too much reality. Not right now
Ordinarily civilians have a choice either to stay and hope for the best or flee but the latter isn’t currently an option .
So pressure needs to be placed on Egypt to open their border. I find it hard to believe people would be supporting a scenario where civilians are trapped with no food or water and are forced to stay and be killed .
ITN news showed pictures from the border to Egypt. It remains closed. There is no way out by land, sea or air from Gaza.
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.
Shit does happen in war.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine since the Russians latest invasion began. So should Ukraine have not fought back?
You advocating Israel just surrender to Hamas and not fight back are no better than the Russian trolls saying Ukraine should surrender to avoid casualties.
Casualties are a regrettable thing that happens in war, but Russia/Hamas need to be defeated. Ukraine/Israel need to be victorious. Even if casualties happen.
Nope I am not advocating that. But I am also saying that the plan of flatten Gaza and drive them into the sea and fuck the consequences is not a viable plan. What it does is achieve exactly what Hamas wants which is to turn world opinion against Israel.
You think it can't happen? Look at how world opinion changed against the US from the weeks after 9/11 to a decade later.
I said on here a couple of days ago that Hamas actually wants Israel to follow the route you advocate. Not because they think they can win militarily but because they want Israel to overreact and kill thousands of civilians. The more Israel kill the better for Hamas, even if they lose Gaza. And that fuckwit Bibi is going to give them exactly what they want.
Your views are not only morally abhorant, they are strategically stupid.
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 Gazans just broke out and killed every Israeli Jew they could find. In the cruellest way possible. Up to and including shooting toddlers in the head and beheading babies. It is clear that they would kill every Jew in Israel - and possibly beyond -given half a chance
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
You shouldn't hold the whole population of Gaza responsible for the atrocities carried out by Hamas. I think you know this really. So I'm not sure what this sort of post is meant to be achieving. Or maybe I do. And if I'm right (which I am) it's low rent and reprehensible and probably ought to cease.
@BartholomewRoberts is getting a lot of grief on here. I can see why, he can be deeply annoying to argue with
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
'We' worried enough to ask 'Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?'
Did you?
How many Israelis are you ok with Hamas killing before you think that it's OK for Israel to fight to defeat them? 6 million?
I'm quoting Churchill, you gormless historically ignorant nitwit.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
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.
But if Gaza were a State, then de jure or de facto, a state of war would exist between the two, and blockade is lawful in war.
Depriving a population of food is now a war crime under the 1949 Rome Convention. That applies as long as the two sides are independent states. On a point of law it does not apply if it is not an international conflict.
Indeed the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that the Israeli blockade is a war crime if it prevents food and medicine getting into Gaza. .
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grime, and do we need to drama about that?
Coogan is a very versatile actor, though will always be remembered best for his alter ego Alan Partridge. He was great as Stan Laurel too in Stan and Ollie.
I think that the sexual abuse is all off screen, ending at the moment where the victim realises what is about to happen.
The programme itself is disjointed by the flips between the drama and the vintage clips of the real Savile and the interviews. Maybe it gets more coherent later on, but I think it would have worked better as a pure drama, perhaps with an accompanying documentary.
I think this is the problem. It could be any drama, in fact its more sanitised than say a HBO show from the noughties.
Do I want to see more graphic reconstruction, no, but then its tricky, because if you go too softly / sanitised, I don't think the pure evil of Savile comes through....instead it all seems a bit like "casting cough" stuff, plenty of normal drama include scenes of sexual assault, when from what we know he was far far worse than a Weinstein type.
In fact in one scene he reels off other famous people who had young teenage wives / girlfriends e.g. John Peel and mention of girls wanting to go to dressing rooms of other stars.
For me, if you want to do this, it has been a "teaching / learning" exercise to really hit home what an evil man he was and how the system allowed him to get away with this. If not, don't do it.
Like the ear cutting scene by Mr Blonde in Reservoir Dogs, keeping the horror off screen makes it more impactful.
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.
Hamas got 44% of the vote the last time there was a vote, so less than half. Fatah won 3 of 5 districts in Gaza in those elections.
What polling knowledge or personal experience of Gaza do you have for your statement?
Wow only 44% voted for hamas. That doesn't preclude a percentage of people not voting for them because they though hamas were a bit soft on the israel question....44% is a lot of gazans. Would you object if the idf went in an kill 44% of Gazans? I am betting you would
So you accept that a majority of Gazans did not support Hamas in 2006, before the coup.
A number of districts in the West Bank also voted for Hamas. Should they be exterminated too?
What percentage of the expelled refugees should we accept?
We should not accept any, not because they are the wrong colour or wrong faith but because they believe in a culture of "killing your neighbour" is fine....not just palestinians but israelis too. Almost half of Gaza voted for hamas a good ten percent more would have voted for more hardline candidates. Gazans are not the innocents you are trying to claim. The same goes for the israelis that voted for hard line parties
I have never claimed that all Gazans are innocents, but neither do I believe them all guilty.
No nation is wholly guilty, the germans weren't in the 39 to 45 war. However when war comes innocents get hurt. Now I dont believe palestinians are wholly to blame nor israel. Both had a hand in stirring the pot however hamas is the gazan govenemnet, just like the nazi's were the german governement or saddam was the iraqi governement during kuwait. They all sent forces into neighbouring states and their population innocent or otherwise suffered the consequences
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
It's why I do not use the term "war crimes", as all war is legally sanctioned crime.
The current geopolitical situation feels less WWIII to me than Cold War II. But instead of it being USSR/USA it is much more multipolar and with more players on the board.
Now we are seeing a massive geopolitical tussle between the USA, EU, Russia, China and to some extent India, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Everyone is fighting proxy wars with each other, but doesn’t want the direct confrontation.
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 Gazans just broke out and killed every Israeli Jew they could find. In the cruellest way possible. Up to and including shooting toddlers in the head and beheading babies. It is clear that they would kill every Jew in Israel - and possibly beyond -given half a chance
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
You shouldn't hold the whole population of Gaza responsible for the atrocities carried out by Hamas. I think you know this really. So I'm not sure what this sort of post is meant to be achieving. Or maybe I do. And if I'm right (which I am) it's low rent and reprehensible and probably ought to cease.
Oh DO fuck off with your tedious middlebrow halfwitted Radio 4 tutting. It is neither interesting nor clever, and has zero effect, and you have zero insight
You never travel, you know nothing, you're a painful idiot
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grime, and do we need to drama about that?
Coogan is a very versatile actor, though will always be remembered best for his alter ego Alan Partridge. He was great as Stan Laurel too in Stan and Ollie.
I think that the sexual abuse is all off screen, ending at the moment where the victim realises what is about to happen.
The programme itself is disjointed by the flips between the drama and the vintage clips of the real Savile and the interviews. Maybe it gets more coherent later on, but I think it would have worked better as a pure drama, perhaps with an accompanying documentary.
I think this is the problem. It could be any drama, in fact its more sanitised than say a HBO show from the noughties.
Do I want to see more graphic reconstruction, no, but then its tricky, because if you go too softly / sanitised, I don't think the pure evil of Savile comes through....instead it all seems a bit like "casting cough" stuff, plenty of normal drama include scenes of sexual assault, when from what we know he was far far worse than a Weinstein type.
In fact in one scene he reels off other famous people who had young teenage wives / girlfriends e.g. John Peel and mention of girls wanting to go to dressing rooms of other stars.
For me, if you want to do this, it has been a "teaching / learning" exercise to really hit home what an evil man he was and how the system allowed him to get away with this. If not, don't do it.
Like the ear cutting scene by Mr Blonde in Reservoir Dogs, keeping the horror off screen makes it more impactful.
Can make it more impactful. My point is I don't think this Savile programme manages this. I feel like this could be any random drama.
@BartholomewRoberts is getting a lot of grief on here. I can see why, he can be deeply annoying to argue with
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
'We' worried enough to ask 'Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?'
“The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing”.
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?
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.
Shit does happen in war.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine since the Russians latest invasion began. So should Ukraine have not fought back?
You advocating Israel just surrender to Hamas and not fight back are no better than the Russian trolls saying Ukraine should surrender to avoid casualties.
Casualties are a regrettable thing that happens in war, but Russia/Hamas need to be defeated. Ukraine/Israel need to be victorious. Even if casualties happen.
Nope I am not advocating that. But I am also saying that the plan of flatten Gaza and drive them into the sea and fuck the consequences is not a viable plan. What it does is achieve exactly what Hamas wants which is to turn world opinion against Israel.
You think it can't happen? Look at how world opinion changed against the US from the weeks after 9/11 to a decade later.
I said on here a couple of days ago that Hamas actually wants Israel to follow the route you advocate. Not because they think they can win militarily but because they want Israel to overreact and kill thousands of civilians. The more Israel kill the better for Hamas, even if they lose Gaza. And that fuckwit Bibi is going to give them exactly what they want.
Your views are not only morally abhorant, they are strategically stupid.
No you're totally wrong on the motives and @rcs1000 is right.
The intention here was to kill the Saudi/Israeli peace talks, which has been achieved. There was no intention of losing Gaza in the process.
They thought that they could strike Israel however brutally they wanted and Israel would continue to have one hand tied behind it's back in fighting back.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
As I mentioned earlier not all Hamas terrorists are exclusively adult males. We have female adult terrorists and boys and girls who can handle an AR15. So those advocating the execution of all adult males in Gaza to wipe out Hamas are only looking at a fraction of the picture.
It's best to think of a more pragmatic means to the end.
@BartholomewRoberts is getting a lot of grief on here. I can see why, he can be deeply annoying to argue with
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
'We' worried enough to ask 'Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?'
Did you?
How many Israelis are you ok with Hamas killing before you think that it's OK for Israel to fight to defeat them? 6 million?
I'm quoting Churchill, you gormless historically ignorant nitwit.
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.
How do you know? They haven't had an election since 2006 and Hamas are notorious for liking killing off their oppponents within Gaza almost as much as they like killing Israelis.
Yes they have significant support. But neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how much of the Gaza population that represents.
We go by the last election 44% of gazans voted for hamas, 41% for fatah who have similar views on israel but slightly more moderate I grant you thats 85% of gazans
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 Gazans just broke out and killed every Israeli Jew they could find. In the cruellest way possible. Up to and including shooting toddlers in the head and beheading babies. It is clear that they would kill every Jew in Israel - and possibly beyond -given half a chance
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
You shouldn't hold the whole population of Gaza responsible for the atrocities carried out by Hamas. I think you know this really. So I'm not sure what this sort of post is meant to be achieving. Or maybe I do. And if I'm right (which I am) it's low rent and reprehensible and probably ought to cease.
Oh DO fuck off with your tedious middlebrow halfwitted Radio 4 tutting. It is neither interesting nor clever, and has zero effect, and you have zero insight
You never travel, you know nothing, you're a painful idiot
All flights at London Luton Airport have been suspended because of a large fire in one of its car parks.
London Luton Airport always amusing
If HS2 gets built, London Birmingham Airport is about the same journey.
Except that Brum Interchange will be quite a distance from the BHX terminals. I don't know what plans exist to transfer passengers efficiently across the M42 but I suspect in the end it will be standing room only on a bendy bus.
Until very recently, Luton required a shuttle bus too.
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 Gazans just broke out and killed every Israeli Jew they could find. In the cruellest way possible. Up to and including shooting toddlers in the head and beheading babies. It is clear that they would kill every Jew in Israel - and possibly beyond -given half a chance
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
You shouldn't hold the whole population of Gaza responsible for the atrocities carried out by Hamas. I think you know this really. So I'm not sure what this sort of post is meant to be achieving. Or maybe I do. And if I'm right (which I am) it's low rent and reprehensible and probably ought to cease.
Oh DO fuck off with your tedious middlebrow halfwitted Radio 4 tutting. It is neither interesting nor clever, and has zero effect, and you have zero insight
You never travel, you know nothing, you're a painful idiot
Ah, falling back on the insults which means you either know you are wrong or you are drunk or both.
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.
How do you know? They haven't had an election since 2006 and Hamas are notorious for liking killing off their oppponents within Gaza almost as much as they like killing Israelis.
Yes they have significant support. But neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how much of the Gaza population that represents.
We go by the last election 44% of gazans voted for hamas, 41% for fatah who have similar views on israel but slightly more moderate I grant you thats 85% of gazans
So a minority of them (44%) 16 years ago.
Well that was the last election and lest you forget fatah are a proscribed terrorist organistion in their own right. so 85% of them
Barbarism does not justify barbarism. While the desire for vengeance is strong, Israel is a developed, successful democratic country. Sometimes we must hold ourselves to higher standards than our opponents.
That does not mean that retaliation against Hamas is not justified. But what is done by way of retaliation - well, that is the moral dilemma.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
I have always thought the concept of "war crimes" is pretty ridiculous, as a legal idea, and have said so on here several times. It is merely/usually the justice of victors. Was the US nuking of Japan a war crime? Or a crime? Or what?
What I do believe in is a basic moral code - not written in any book - whereby people naturally intuit what is "wrong". Beheading innocent babies, as Hamas has done, is so wrong it is off the dial
The Russians slaughtering innocents in Bucha was also very wrong, if not quite in the same league
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
“Ukraine…. should do whatever it takes to win”.
Thankfully President Zelensky does not agree. That’s why he has our full support and, ironically, will hopefully win.
At the basic level a question...if the uk had sent 2000 troops into calais and told them to kill all french people they saw....would that be the uk declaring war on france? That is what hamas basically did. In wars innocents die...ask the people of coventry or dresden. It is sad but its also every war that has ever been.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
I have always thought the concept of "war crimes" is pretty ridiculous, as a legal idea, and have said so on here several times. It is merely/usually the justice of victors. Was the US nuking of Japan a war crime? Or a crime? Or what?
What I do believe in is a basic moral code - not written in any book - whereby people naturally intuit what is "wrong". Beheading innocent babies, as Hamas has done, is so wrong it is off the dial
The Russians slaughtering innocents in Bucha was also very wrong, if not quite in the same league
And I've always had the same attitude. International law is a bad joke, more guidelines than actual rules.
It takes a rather sick attitude to suggest Bucha or Kfar Aza àre wrong only because they're illegal.
No they're wrong because they're wrong.
And both Israel and Ukraine need to defeat their attackers. And we should completely support them both to do so.
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 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 Gazans just broke out and killed every Israeli Jew they could find. In the cruellest way possible. Up to and including shooting toddlers in the head and beheading babies. It is clear that they would kill every Jew in Israel - and possibly beyond -given half a chance
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
You shouldn't hold the whole population of Gaza responsible for the atrocities carried out by Hamas. I think you know this really. So I'm not sure what this sort of post is meant to be achieving. Or maybe I do. And if I'm right (which I am) it's low rent and reprehensible and probably ought to cease.
Oh DO fuck off with your tedious middlebrow halfwitted Radio 4 tutting. It is neither interesting nor clever, and has zero effect, and you have zero insight
You never travel, you know nothing, you're a painful idiot
Well on that note I think I'll turn in now.
But seriously ... I'm watching you on this one and so far it's not pretty.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
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 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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
If you are an average Gazan, do you think you are the aggressor, or Israel?
I ask this in all seriousness. Put yourself in the shoes of an average Gazan. They will - I suspect - say "Israel doesn't allow us to live. They've blockade our port. They cut off our power. Our life is shit. You say I should recognize Israel's right to exist? Well, maybe they should recognize Gaza's right to exist."
Does that mean Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself? Of course not.
But the Six Days War happened after the Arab states blockaded Israel's ports, and that was regarded (by me at least) as a righteous war.
Of course, the Israelis didn't indiscriminatory kill and kidnap civilians, so there's a big difference. But would I see that if I was in Gaza?
It's time for the PB hand-wringers to suggest exactly how Israel can achieve its clear and necessary objectives without vast casualties. Those objectives are:
1. It needs to destroy Hamas entirely 2. It needs to subjugate Gaza to the extent that Hamas cannot re-awaken in the next 50 years 3. It needs to change Gaza to the extent that no successor to Hamas will be born, able to behead Israeli babies
These are really difficult things to do, without levelling Gaza and killing lots of Gazans. But if PB-ers have any ideas as to how Israel might do this, I promise to forward them to the Knesset. Because I imagine they would really like to hear an alternative
For the avoidance of doubt, I too would like to hear an alternative. No one is thirsting for blood. This is a horrific situation for which - in my opinion - Israel is as much to blame as the Gazans. But we are where we are
Just watched the first couple of episodes of the Jimmy Savile thing. Coogan is an arse in real life, but he does play Savile well, but I am not sure about the programme in general.
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grim, and do we need to drama about that? The likes of HBO at its prime didn't shy away from such scenes, but it wasn't the whole premise of the series.
Goodness. There is quite enough sadness in the world to watch a dramatisation of a real life paedophile for entertainment. Monty Don and the crew planting daffodils is more the ticket right now.
Yeah, quite agree
I'm watching mainly sci-fi and cooking shows at the mo. I, like most of mankind, cannot bear too much reality. Not right now
For cheerful escapism, you could check out One Piece on Netflix. A surprisingly successful live action adaptation of one of the longest running (26 years and counting), and the best selling Japanese manga.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
If you are an average Gazan, do you think you are the aggressor, or Israel?
I ask this in all seriousness. Put yourself in the shoes of an average Gazan. They will - I suspect - say "Israel doesn't allow us to live. They've blockade our port. They cut off our power. Our life is shit. You say I should recognize Israel's right to exist? Well, maybe they should recognize Gaza's right to exist."
Does that mean Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself? Of course not.
But the Six Days War happened after the Arab states blockaded Israel's ports, and that was regarded (by me at least) as a righteous war.
Of course, the Israelis didn't indiscriminatory kill and kidnap civilians, so there's a big difference. But would I see that if I was in Gaza?
Not sure what you mean by a righteous war so will have to explain, yes the life of the gazans is shit....however if they didnt support hamas and supported parties that wanted to reconcile I suspect over time the yoke would be relaxed until there came a time where israeli and palestinian could be countrymen. The fact is though they support the hardliners.
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 Gazans just broke out and killed every Israeli Jew they could find. In the cruellest way possible. Up to and including shooting toddlers in the head and beheading babies. It is clear that they would kill every Jew in Israel - and possibly beyond -given half a chance
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
You shouldn't hold the whole population of Gaza responsible for the atrocities carried out by Hamas. I think you know this really. So I'm not sure what this sort of post is meant to be achieving. Or maybe I do. And if I'm right (which I am) it's low rent and reprehensible and probably ought to cease.
Oh DO fuck off with your tedious middlebrow halfwitted Radio 4 tutting. It is neither interesting nor clever, and has zero effect, and you have zero insight
You never travel, you know nothing, you're a painful idiot
Well on that note I think I'll turn in now.
But seriously ... I'm watching you on this one and so far it's not pretty.
lol. What are you going to do? Report me to your golf club?
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.
How do you know? They haven't had an election since 2006 and Hamas are notorious for liking killing off their oppponents within Gaza almost as much as they like killing Israelis.
Yes they have significant support. But neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how much of the Gaza population that represents.
We go by the last election 44% of gazans voted for hamas, 41% for fatah who have similar views on israel but slightly more moderate I grant you thats 85% of gazans
So a minority of them (44%) 16 years ago.
Well that was the last election and lest you forget fatah are a proscribed terrorist organistion in their own right. so 85% of them
Do you have a source for that?
I cannot see Fatah on the UK list of proscribed terrorist organisations:
It's time for the PB hand-wringers to suggest exactly how Israel can achieve its clear and necessary objectives without vast casualties. Those objectives are:
1. It needs to destroy Hamas entirely 2. It needs to subjugate Gaza to the extent that Hamas cannot re-awaken in the next 50 years 3. It needs to change Gaza to the extent that no successor to Hamas will be born, able to behead Israeli babies
These are really difficult things to do, without levelling Gaza and killing lots of Gazans. But if PB-ers have any ideas as to how Israel might do this, I promise to forward them to the Knesset. Because I imagine they would really like to hear an alternative
For the avoidance of doubt, I too would like to hear an alternative. No one is thirsting for blood. This is a horrific situation for which - in my opinion - Israel is as much to blame as the Gazans. But we are where we are
I don't know. I'm not sure it's possible without going after Hamas' enablers.
But I'm pretty sure a ground invasion of Gaza will be unsuccessful. It's a giant urban warren. Thousands of Israeli soldiers will be killed, and thousands more Gazans will turn to Hamas, ultimately weakening Israel's ability to defend itself in the long term.
In a worst case scenario, millions of Palestinians starve, Israel turns into the baddie, Iran etc uses the excuse and the IDFs preoccupation with Gaza to open war on Israel.
At the basic level a question...if the uk had sent 2000 troops into calais and told them to kill all french people they saw....would that be the uk declaring war on france? That is what hamas basically did. In wars innocents die...ask the people of coventry or dresden. It is sad but its also every war that has ever been.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
If you are an average Gazan, do you think you are the aggressor, or Israel?
I ask this in all seriousness. Put yourself in the shoes of an average Gazan. They will - I suspect - say "Israel doesn't allow us to live. They've blockade our port. They cut off our power. Our life is shit. You say I should recognize Israel's right to exist? Well, maybe they should recognize Gaza's right to exist."
Does that mean Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself? Of course not.
But the Six Days War happened after the Arab states blockaded Israel's ports, and that was regarded (by me at least) as a righteous war.
Of course, the Israelis didn't indiscriminatory kill and kidnap civilians, so there's a big difference. But would I see that if I was in Gaza?
Not sure what you mean by a righteous war so will have to explain, yes the life of the gazans is shit....however if they didnt support hamas and supported parties that wanted to reconcile I suspect over time the yoke would be relaxed until there came a time where israeli and palestinian could be countrymen. The fact is though they support the hardliners.
Well sure, but the Israelis have elected a government that doesn't seem to have any interest in the Palestinians having a state.
It feels terribly... arbitrary... to say "Oh, the Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist" without the corollary of "Oh, the Israelis must recognize the right of Palestine to exist".
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.
How do you know? They haven't had an election since 2006 and Hamas are notorious for liking killing off their oppponents within Gaza almost as much as they like killing Israelis.
Yes they have significant support. But neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how much of the Gaza population that represents.
We go by the last election 44% of gazans voted for hamas, 41% for fatah who have similar views on israel but slightly more moderate I grant you thats 85% of gazans
So a minority of them (44%) 16 years ago.
Well that was the last election and lest you forget fatah are a proscribed terrorist organistion in their own right. so 85% of them
Do you have a source for that?
I cannot see Fatah on the UK list of proscribed terrorist organisations:
Did I say it was a uk proscribed group? no but the israelis do. They live with them.....the us never for example had the ira as a proscribed terrorist group didn't mean they werent one
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
If you are an average Gazan, do you think you are the aggressor, or Israel?
I ask this in all seriousness. Put yourself in the shoes of an average Gazan. They will - I suspect - say "Israel doesn't allow us to live. They've blockade our port. They cut off our power. Our life is shit. You say I should recognize Israel's right to exist? Well, maybe they should recognize Gaza's right to exist."
Does that mean Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself? Of course not.
But the Six Days War happened after the Arab states blockaded Israel's ports, and that was regarded (by me at least) as a righteous war.
Of course, the Israelis didn't indiscriminatory kill and kidnap civilians, so there's a big difference. But would I see that if I was in Gaza?
I might think that if I were, and I'd be wrong to do so if I did.
Egypt blockading Israel was an act of war against a sovereign and peaceful state that triggered a conflict that is still ongoing to this day.
The blockade of Gaza you refer to never happened as an act of war against a peaceful, innocent country like what Egypt did to Israel. It is part of an ongoing and continuing same conflict that Egypt began all those years ago. Peace was never agreed with that territory.
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
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
“… even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?”
No, it is not. It would not be proportionate to the military aim.
Read the LOAC. They aren’t some archaic set of details and impractical rules; they are a codification of what decent people think about war, and would be willing to be held accountable to in a court of law.
There’s a few anomalies (killing someone is preferred to blinding them) but it’s mostly basic stuff - including the idea of proportionality.
It's time for the PB hand-wringers to suggest exactly how Israel can achieve its clear and necessary objectives without vast casualties. Those objectives are:
1. It needs to destroy Hamas entirely 2. It needs to subjugate Gaza to the extent that Hamas cannot re-awaken in the next 50 years 3. It needs to change Gaza to the extent that no successor to Hamas will be born, able to behead Israeli babies
These are really difficult things to do, without levelling Gaza and killing lots of Gazans. But if PB-ers have any ideas as to how Israel might do this, I promise to forward them to the Knesset. Because I imagine they would really like to hear an alternative
For the avoidance of doubt, I too would like to hear an alternative. No one is thirsting for blood. This is a horrific situation for which - in my opinion - Israel is as much to blame as the Gazans. But we are where we are
I don't know. I'm not sure it's possible without going after Hamas' enablers.
But I'm pretty sure a ground invasion of Gaza will be unsuccessful. It's a giant urban warren. Thousands of Israeli soldiers will be killed, and thousands more Gazans will turn to Hamas, ultimately weakening Israel's ability to defend itself in the long term.
In a worst case scenario, millions of Palestinians starve, Israel turns into the baddie, Iran etc uses the excuse and the IDFs preoccupation with Gaza to open war on Israel.
I half agree, but I don't think israel has much choice. After October 7 and now Kfar Aza there is no way Israel can step back and call a truce with Hamas. Any PM suggesting that would be lynched, for a start
So they will have to go in and destroy Hamas as a fighting force. And - as I say below - the only way you can do that as an Israeli general without incurring major losses is by a slow, grinding, remorseless destruction of Gaza, block by block, shooting every fighting age male that doesn't flee or immediately surrender
That possibly means quite enormous numbers of Gazan casualties (tho it is also possible Hamas will simply slip away and the fighting is easy, who knows). It is unbearably bleak
Comments
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine since the Russians latest invasion began. So should Ukraine have not fought back?
You advocating Israel just surrender to Hamas and not fight back are no better than the Russian trolls saying Ukraine should surrender to avoid casualties.
Casualties are a regrettable thing that happens in war, but Russia/Hamas need to be defeated. Ukraine/Israel need to be victorious. Even if casualties happen.
So it's not quite fair to say he 'supported' the Hamas actions, as some have been saying on here.
Now it appears he is doubling down on this and being selective over the clips.
At best he read the room wrong and overstepped the mark and should be apologising to Margaret Hodge, instead he is calling her a liar.
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election
What polling knowledge or personal experience of Gaza do you have for your statement?
Really lovely new social housing that takes advantage of an irregular lot in Paris.
Affordable housing doesn't have to be grim!
https://twitter.com/Cobylefko/status/1711859471440322620
However he is merely pointing out, in his normal clumsy dogmatic apparently emotionless way, what in this instance is the case. Israel now sees itself in a war for its existence. Hamas themselves have declared this an "all-out" war, and made it plain by their actions that if they win every Jew in Israel will die
Israel has also decided it is in a total war for its own existence. It is not going to be counting the Gazan casualties and worrying. It is determined to win, or die trying
Did the British worry about German casualties in WW2? No we did not. It was a war for our survival, so we did everything we could to win. That meant millions of Germans dead. We did not fret about the numbers
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/congressman-george-santos-charged-conspiracy-wire-fraud-false-statements-0
You think it can't happen? Look at how world opinion changed against the US from the weeks after 9/11 to a decade later.
I said on here a couple of days ago that Hamas actually wants Israel to follow the route you advocate. Not because they think they can win militarily but because they want Israel to overreact and kill thousands of civilians. The more Israel kill the better for Hamas, even if they lose Gaza. And that fuckwit Bibi is going to give them exactly what they want.
Your views are not only morally abhorant, they are strategically stupid.
A number of districts in the West Bank also voted for Hamas. Should they be exterminated too?
What percentage of the expelled refugees should we accept?
And for that, I'm called inhumane. 🙄
1. You aren't an international lawyer, either, so you don't know
2. No one knows, this is sui generis
3. It doesn't matter anyway, reality is changing on the ground moment by moment
I don't think it really portrays the evil of the man, larges chunks of it could be any random drama about the time period, interlaced with the suggestive scenes of his sexual predatory behaviour.
And if it did show more graphic reconstructions, it was be very grim, and do we need to drama about that? The likes of HBO at its prime didn't shy away from such scenes, but obviously it wasn't the whole premise of the series.
It has an awful inevitability about it. I recall that Threads begins with a crisis in Iran....
Yes they have significant support. But neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how much of the Gaza population that represents.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0g3zjn9/when-louis-met-series-1-jimmy-savile
I think that the sexual abuse is all off screen, ending at the moment where the victim realises what is about to happen.
The programme itself is disjointed by the flips between the drama and the vintage clips of the real Savile and the interviews. Maybe it gets more coherent later on, but I think it would have worked better as a pure drama, perhaps with an accompanying documentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-Rail_Link
As you say though, it’s moot; Israel will do what they do - and they aren’t going to sit on their hands for a week.
Do I want to see more graphic reconstruction, no, but then its tricky, because if you go too softly / sanitised, I don't think the pure evil of Savile comes through....instead it all seems a bit like "casting cough" stuff, plenty of normal drama include scenes of sexual assault, when from what we know he was far far worse than a Weinstein type.
In fact in one scene he reels off other famous people who had young teenage wives / girlfriends e.g. John Peel and mention of girls wanting to go to dressing rooms of other stars.
For me, if you want to do this, it has been a "teaching / learning" exercise to really hit home what an evil man he was and how the system allowed him to get away with this. If not, don't do it.
How many Israelis are you ok with Hamas killing before you think that it's OK for Israel to fight to defeat them? 6 million?
So pressure needs to be placed on Egypt to open their border. I find it hard to believe people would be supporting a scenario where civilians are trapped with no food or water and are forced to stay and be killed .
I'm watching mainly sci-fi and cooking shows at the mo. I, like most of mankind, cannot bear too much reality. Not right now
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
Indeed the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that the Israeli blockade is a war crime if it prevents food and medicine getting into Gaza. .
Now we are seeing a massive geopolitical tussle between the USA, EU, Russia, China and to some extent India, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Everyone is fighting proxy wars with each other, but doesn’t want the direct confrontation.
You never travel, you know nothing, you're a painful idiot
The intention here was to kill the Saudi/Israeli peace talks, which has been achieved. There was no intention of losing Gaza in the process.
They thought that they could strike Israel however brutally they wanted and Israel would continue to have one hand tied behind it's back in fighting back.
It's best to think of a more pragmatic means to the end.
I am quoting Churchill too!
That does not mean that retaliation against Hamas is not justified. But what is done by way of retaliation - well, that is the moral dilemma.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
What I do believe in is a basic moral code - not written in any book - whereby people naturally intuit what is "wrong". Beheading innocent babies, as Hamas has done, is so wrong it is off the dial
The Russians slaughtering innocents in Bucha was also very wrong, if not quite in the same league
Thankfully President Zelensky does not agree. That’s why he has our full support and, ironically, will hopefully win.
It takes a rather sick attitude to suggest Bucha or Kfar Aza àre wrong only because they're illegal.
No they're wrong because they're wrong.
And both Israel and Ukraine need to defeat their attackers. And we should completely support them both to do so.
https://news.sky.com/story/sundays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754
But seriously ... I'm watching you on this one and so far it's not pretty.
Our policy is that everything is open source and transparent, an approach that I know the EU supports.
Please list the violations you allude to on 𝕏, so that that the public can see them.
Merci beaucoup.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1711832919335976991
I ask this in all seriousness. Put yourself in the shoes of an average Gazan. They will - I suspect - say "Israel doesn't allow us to live. They've blockade our port. They cut off our power. Our life is shit. You say I should recognize Israel's right to exist? Well, maybe they should recognize Gaza's right to exist."
Does that mean Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself? Of course not.
But the Six Days War happened after the Arab states blockaded Israel's ports, and that was regarded (by me at least) as a righteous war.
Of course, the Israelis didn't indiscriminatory kill and kidnap civilians, so there's a big difference. But would I see that if I was in Gaza?
1. It needs to destroy Hamas entirely
2. It needs to subjugate Gaza to the extent that Hamas cannot re-awaken in the next 50 years
3. It needs to change Gaza to the extent that no successor to Hamas will be born, able to behead Israeli babies
These are really difficult things to do, without levelling Gaza and killing lots of Gazans. But if PB-ers have any ideas as to how Israel might do this, I promise to forward them to the Knesset. Because I imagine they would really like to hear an alternative
For the avoidance of doubt, I too would like to hear an alternative. No one is thirsting for blood. This is a horrific situation for which - in my opinion - Israel is as much to blame as the Gazans. But we are where we are
Brave paragon of free speech.
A surprisingly successful live action adaptation of one of the longest running (26 years and counting), and the best selling Japanese manga.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
I cannot see Fatah on the UK list of proscribed terrorist organisations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version
But I'm pretty sure a ground invasion of Gaza will be unsuccessful. It's a giant urban warren. Thousands of Israeli soldiers will be killed, and thousands more Gazans will turn to Hamas, ultimately weakening Israel's ability to defend itself in the long term.
In a worst case scenario, millions of Palestinians starve, Israel turns into the baddie, Iran etc uses the excuse and the IDFs preoccupation with Gaza to open war on Israel.
It feels terribly... arbitrary... to say "Oh, the Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist" without the corollary of "Oh, the Israelis must recognize the right of Palestine to exist".
Egypt blockading Israel was an act of war against a sovereign and peaceful state that triggered a conflict that is still ongoing to this day.
The blockade of Gaza you refer to never happened as an act of war against a peaceful, innocent country like what Egypt did to Israel. It is part of an ongoing and continuing same conflict that Egypt began all those years ago. Peace was never agreed with that territory.
No, it is not. It would not be proportionate to the military aim.
Read the LOAC. They aren’t some archaic set of details and impractical rules; they are a codification of what decent people think about war, and would be willing to be held accountable to in a court of law.
There’s a few anomalies (killing someone is preferred to blinding them) but it’s mostly basic stuff - including the idea of proportionality.
So they will have to go in and destroy Hamas as a fighting force. And - as I say below - the only way you can do that as an Israeli general without incurring major losses is by a slow, grinding, remorseless destruction of Gaza, block by block, shooting every fighting age male that doesn't flee or immediately surrender
That possibly means quite enormous numbers of Gazan casualties (tho it is also possible Hamas will simply slip away and the fighting is easy, who knows). It is unbearably bleak
And on that truly cheerless note, I shall abed