War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
The Middle East is not the UK. Sinn Fein could be negotiated with, Hamas and Hezbollah can not.
Why can Israel not 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah, yet they could defeat Egypt and Sri Lanka could defeat the Tamil Tigers?
They 'defeated' Egypt through means of a conventional war. And even then they didn't stop the armed conflict as such. That was done via a peace treaty on equal terms, not through defeat on the battlefield. In case you missed the Camp David Agreement.
The Camp David Agreement followed a comprehensive military victory, yes.
A military victory should not be the end of the matter, after defeating the enemy and they accept defeat then a peace agreement can be made with those who will recognise the facts and recognise their right to exist - which unfortunately does not extend to Hamas and Hezbollah.
Sinn Fein could be negotiated with, they wanted facts changing in Ireland, but they never denied England's right to exist. Hamas and Hezbollah are not remotely in the same ballpark.
Actually no. By the time of the Camp David agreement Egypt was already well on the way to rearming with the help of the Russians. The cycle was simply going to begin all over again just as it had in 1967 and 1973.
Very few Americans realize that, if Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it!
The irony is that Musk himself was an illegal immigrant to the US, in the sense that he arrived on a student visa he then broke the terms of.
If that is the case, where ought they to send him back to?
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Not a valid comparison
For a true comparison imagine there is a pretty mighty armed group in Ireland constantly trying to break into Great Britain, and always lobbing shells and rockets at Liverpool. Then imagine that one day they do manage to land in Lancashire - about 2000 of them - and they proceed to slaughter huge numbers of Britons - 10,000 of us (that is the equivalent of Oct 7 in population) and imagine this 10,000 consists of British men and women and children, penisioners and kids alike, shot and tortured and massacred in a two day frenzy of bloodlust, just for being British, and then imagine that the Irish kidnap hundreds of other Brits - young and old - and take them back to Dublin to be tortured, raped, brutalised, and paraded on TV to taunt us
And then imagine that this same Irish army promises to do the same again and again, killing as many British people as possible, whenever they get the chance, and they do not seek peace - they only want Britain eradicated and as many Brits dead as possible. Also imagine these Irish fighters are pretty much fascists who throw gays off buildings
How would Britain respond? Would we seek "peace"? There is likely no peace to be had. I suspect we would eventually react like Israel is reacting, now
Not false at all. A valid comparison.
And if you think that Israel's current actions will actually end the conflict then you are as deluded as Bart.
I never said this will end the conflict. I said Israel has decided this is the only way to "end the conflict", quite a different thing
And everything Israel is doing lends weight to that theory. They want to render Gaza an uninhabitable wasteland, chase the Palestinians off the West Bank, secure a very tough border with Lebanon, wipe out Hezbollah, and terrorise Iran and other enemies into backing down, long term (and before Iran gets nukes)
It's quite a tall order but they are giving it a go
And now I must do my daily kettlebell exercise! Ah, the excitement
In which case you are kind of irrelevant to this argument as it was about Bart's claims that the only way to end the conflict is through military defeat of Hamas and Hezbollah. That is what I was arguing against.
From the summary of Laura K's programme, here's the key difference between Jenrick and Kemi:
Jenrick says he'd introduce a legally binding cap on migration in the tens of thousands "or lower"
Badenoch says some people have brought views that "have no place here" - and also says some cultures are less valid than others
Both are expressing an immigration-skeptic viewpoint. But Kemi just says something fruity, cultural, and potentially annoying to the sensitive, about immigration. She says nothing about what she would do - what policies she would put in place to support her (perhaps valid) views. Jenrick - what do we need to do? Get net migration below 100,000. How would you do it? Legally-binding migration cap. Now, it may be bollocks, as bollocks as Boris' manifesto, but at least he has committed, so it will be exposed as a u-turn if abandoned. Kemi has given nothing except some punchy commentary. That's a Spectator writer, not a PM.
Or alternatively, all Jenrick is talking about is numbers....... Not bothering with the thorny but necessary subject of who is most likely to be able to integrate into UK society.
So what is Kemi saying then? Quotas from Muslim countries? Not a chance in hell. She has made absolutely no policy proposals of any kind to my knowledge.
She says its too early for policies. It is a time for getting the principles right first.
I'm all in favour of discussions about where it went wrong etc., I don't subscribe to Cleverly's wish to sweep it all under the carpet, but Kemi was a Government Minister for years. She must have developed SOME idea of an actual THING she wants to do in that time.
She probably has, but right at the start of a Labour government lasting at least 5 years it's probably wise to wait & have some inkling about where she will have to start from when she gets a go.
Respectfully, I disagree. The policies are for now. If Labour turns around and solves all the country’s issues so that they don't exist in 5 year's time, they will obviously have to change, and nobody would expect otherwise.
Both Israel and their Hamas/Hizbollah/Iranian opponents are doing wrong in the Middle East. Of these, I'd say Israel is doing the least wrong.
But we as a country don't actively support Hamas, Hizbollah or Iran. We do support Israel.
And therefore IMV we should expect better of them.
But I'm also unsure what that 'better' should be, beyond stopping the settlement expansions.
Historically I would agree with you. At present I don't. Under the current regime I would suggest that Israel are doing the most 'wrong'. In a purely numbers game they are killing many times more civilians and are also supporting the illegal annexation of Palestinian lands. I fear that the main reason for all of this is that their current leader saw the October 7th attacks as a perfect excuse to undertake a whole series of acts that would, in any other circumstances, have seen him in front of the criminal court in the Hague. Which is exactly where he deserves to be.
IM Fans please explain why your women was as awful as the current PM
#starmerderangementsyndrome
#youvoted4imeldamarcosandthinkimderanged
I didn't.
Although yes, I think you're deranged.
(If you're confusing me with Leon, you're definitely deranged. One is possessed of the single most brilliant mind on these boards, and the other knaps flint phalluses.)
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Starmer also appears to have failed to convince the US to allow the deployment of long-range missiles into Ukraine, so you can chalk that up as another failure.
That failure is more on Biden and his National Security Adviser.
She should concentrate on a prominent role in Jenrick’s front bench, although since she is known to be quite lazy, it’s not obvious what that role might be.
She's pretty much guaranteed that anyway, by the power of arithmetic.
Start with 121 MPs. Take away the newbies, the bed blockers, the whips, the deputy speakers and the obviously unsuitable... there aren't that many left.
ETA: Oh and select committee members and chairs.
Hang on a second. If they're considering fecking Jenrick for the leadership, could you please clarify who would be so absolutely batshit and/or corrupt as to be 'obviously unsuitable' to serve in the shadow cabinet?
Off the top of my head, Suella Braverman and Andrew Rosindell.
(If Jenrick gets the gig and fails, there's still the option for the Conservatives to go even further into the Twilight Zone.)
I think there's a strong possibility that Suella would be Shadow Home Secretary. I don’t think she'll flounce to Reform, but it has been spoken of, and it would damage Jenrick if she does. It gives Reform the powerful female figure they've been sort of missing, Ann Widdecombe and Holly Vallance notwithstanding.
From the summary of Laura K's programme, here's the key difference between Jenrick and Kemi:
Jenrick says he'd introduce a legally binding cap on migration in the tens of thousands "or lower"
Badenoch says some people have brought views that "have no place here" - and also says some cultures are less valid than others
Both are expressing an immigration-skeptic viewpoint. But Kemi just says something fruity, cultural, and potentially annoying to the sensitive, about immigration. She says nothing about what she would do - what policies she would put in place to support her (perhaps valid) views. Jenrick - what do we need to do? Get net migration below 100,000. How would you do it? Legally-binding migration cap. Now, it may be bollocks, as bollocks as Boris' manifesto, but at least he has committed, so it will be exposed as a u-turn if abandoned. Kemi has given nothing except some punchy commentary. That's a Spectator writer, not a PM.
Or alternatively, all Jenrick is talking about is numbers....... Not bothering with the thorny but necessary subject of who is most likely to be able to integrate into UK society.
So what is Kemi saying then? Quotas from Muslim countries? Not a chance in hell. She has made absolutely no policy proposals of any kind to my knowledge.
She says its too early for policies. It is a time for getting the principles right first.
I'm all in favour of discussions about where it went wrong etc., I don't subscribe to Cleverly's wish to sweep it all under the carpet, but Kemi was a Government Minister for years. She must have developed SOME idea of an actual THING she wants to do in that time.
Whilst that's true, what is possible to do now may not be possible to do after five years of Starmer. And as we learned from Cameron's Lisbon pledge, our political discourse isn't mature enough to accept a concept of "no longer possible".
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
Of course they can, if they press their advantages until the enemies surrender unconditionally.
Just as we pressed our advantages until the Nazis surrendered unconditionally. Just as the Americans pressed theirs until the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. Just as the Sri Lankans pressed theirs until the Tamil Tigers surrendered unconditionally.
Unconditional surrender ends wars.
Ethnic cleansing also ends historic conflicts. Cf Turkey/Greece
This is what Israel is pursuing. They just can’t say it
Indeed they can’t.
The Gaza Strip would make for some first class seaside real estate when redeveloped.
Pretty much everyone with coastline in the Middle East is now planning to copy Dubai and build hotels on the beaches.
Tourism should be a large attraction for the whole region, especially as it’s mostly off-season for European visitors, somewhere to find sun in winter.
If it dropped the violence and distaste for alcohol and women then the Middle East would be beautifully situated to make a fortune from tourism.
Sharm el-Sheikh was itself of course developed by Israel while it occupied the land, and it became a very successful tourist area which it remains to this day after Egypt accepted peace with Israel.
Egypt accepting it had lost the war ended the cycle of violence with Israel and has led to much more prosperity since, even if not great amounts of freedom. Far better than what the Palestinians have under Hamas.
Sharm-el-Sheikh is lovely, a good example of what they could all be doing. If you stop the war, you start attracting tourists.
Even the Saudis are preparing to relax rules on alcohol and women’s dress in their new resort city on the Red Sea. It’ll be a ‘closed city’ with no locals there. Just across the sea from Sharm, as it happens.
NARRATOR: Sharm-el-Sheikh is not "lovely", unless you you enjoy sterile, dessicated resort-cities inexplicably plonked in hostile desert by a windy coast
If all you want to do is lie on the beach for a week in the middle of British winter…
Remember that most Brits have to experience winter, rather than decamp to the brothels of Bangkok for months on end.
What fools they are
I can barely tolerate September in the New British Climate (TM)
I just walked out to buy some food and a wintry wind was gusting down Parkway and everyone was hunched in winter coats. "Feels like" about 9C? This is Sept 29
The cold weather is God's reminder to burn more Catholics at the stake.
My fractious mood might be related to this: yesterday I discovered that you're never too old to learn new things
I went out on the lash with some old uni friends. The evening conclued at chucking out time at the Groucho. Around 1am we came up with a new game of: "inventing hideous cocktails for the other person to drink"
From this I have learned: "never start inventing cocktails, at the Groucho, at 1am"
The annoying thing is you're indoors and you think oh it looks nice outside and you go out and you find, fuck it is cold, I need to put on my The North Face arctic gear.
I'm sure in the past it only got "proper cold" in late October. That was always the time I would fish out winter coats. Scarves and hats. It was OK then. Late October. Halloween coming. Fireworks and sparklers. Apple bobbing. Misty Bloomsbury mornings, like echoes of the Holborn marshes beneath
Not fucking September, thanksvmuch
Nah, late September has always been a bit chilly, if we're lucky we'll get an Indian summer for a week in October before it starts the slide into winter.
Meteorologically. maybe; psychologically, no
Big thick coats begin a few days before Halloween, that's the RULE
9C in September (albeit late) *feels like* we are being ROBBED of one of our few pleasantly mild months
It's comments like this that remind me that how different the concrete hotbox of London is compared to the rest of the country. None of those deep, frosty mornings or the howling winds off the North Sea.
The comfortable temperature difference between Leon and a Geordie must be, what, 20 degrees?
Just been down to the south coast of England. Had to call the operator of our rented accommodation in to give us a single blanket to replace the thick winter duvet on our bed, after a sweltering first night.
It’s a meagre 8 degrees in my part of Durham at the moment.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Not a valid comparison
For a true comparison imagine there is a pretty mighty armed group in Ireland constantly trying to break into Great Britain, and always lobbing shells and rockets at Liverpool. Then imagine that one day they do manage to land in Lancashire - about 2000 of them - and they proceed to slaughter huge numbers of Britons - 10,000 of us (that is the equivalent of Oct 7 in population) and imagine this 10,000 consists of British men and women and children, penisioners and kids alike, shot and tortured and massacred in a two day frenzy of bloodlust, just for being British, and then imagine that the Irish kidnap hundreds of other Brits - young and old - and take them back to Dublin to be tortured, raped, brutalised, and paraded on TV to taunt us
And then imagine that this same Irish army promises to do the same again and again, killing as many British people as possible, whenever they get the chance, and they do not seek peace - they only want Britain eradicated and as many Brits dead as possible. Also imagine these Irish fighters are pretty much fascists who throw gays off buildings
How would Britain respond? Would we seek "peace"? There is likely no peace to be had. I suspect we would eventually react like Israel is reacting, now
Not false at all. A valid comparison.
And if you think that Israel's current actions will actually end the conflict then you are as deluded as Bart.
If you think a "ceasefire" will end the conflict any more than any previous ceasefire with Hamas or Hezbollah then you are the delusional one.
But you don't want the conflict to end, you just want the current conflict to simmer down for a while.
You're no better than the Saturday morning trolls who say that Ukraine should just accept peace with Russia so that Ukrainians don't die in the [current] conflict.
Hahahaha. The difference between us is I actually understand these places and know that a military solution is impossible. You are the one who gets a hard on from seeing Israel bombing civilians day in day out.
He changed his mind? As indeed has most of the labour party, I honestly don't know many people who want to scrap tuition fees -> it's hard to justify the spending vs other uses.
We also had an election just this year and he didn't put it in the manifesto.
I really quite like radio, old-fashioned as it may be. Chanced to hear a sketch - Rory Bremner doing the Trump-Starmer meet. At the end Starmer is escorted out. Inevitably, the lift-boy proves to be Nigel Farage. "Going down, Prime Minister? Arf, Arf".
SKS "is a kind of Patrick Bateman figure. He has constructed an entirely false persona to hide the monster within.
The media, in need of red meat, are now turning their attention on him, and the disturbing reality is becoming clear for all to see" apart from the staunchest SKS fans who will defend him to the last freebie
From the summary of Laura K's programme, here's the key difference between Jenrick and Kemi:
Jenrick says he'd introduce a legally binding cap on migration in the tens of thousands "or lower"
Badenoch says some people have brought views that "have no place here" - and also says some cultures are less valid than others
Both are expressing an immigration-skeptic viewpoint. But Kemi just says something fruity, cultural, and potentially annoying to the sensitive, about immigration. She says nothing about what she would do - what policies she would put in place to support her (perhaps valid) views. Jenrick - what do we need to do? Get net migration below 100,000. How would you do it? Legally-binding migration cap. Now, it may be bollocks, as bollocks as Boris' manifesto, but at least he has committed, so it will be exposed as a u-turn if abandoned. Kemi has given nothing except some punchy commentary. That's a Spectator writer, not a PM.
Or alternatively, all Jenrick is talking about is numbers....... Not bothering with the thorny but necessary subject of who is most likely to be able to integrate into UK society.
So what is Kemi saying then? Quotas from Muslim countries? Not a chance in hell. She has made absolutely no policy proposals of any kind to my knowledge.
She says its too early for policies. It is a time for getting the principles right first.
I'm all in favour of discussions about where it went wrong etc., I don't subscribe to Cleverly's wish to sweep it all under the carpet, but Kemi was a Government Minister for years. She must have developed SOME idea of an actual THING she wants to do in that time.
She probably has, but right at the start of a Labour government lasting at least 5 years it's probably wise to wait & have some inkling about where she will have to start from when she gets a go.
Respectfully, I disagree. The policies are for now. If Labour turns around and solves all the country’s issues so that they don't exist in 5 year's time, they will obviously have to change, and nobody would expect otherwise.
Yes - I realised after I'd posted that I'd made the opposite argument to the one I'd made a few days ago, which was more or less what you've just said.
SKS "is a kind of Patrick Bateman figure. He has constructed an entirely false persona to hide the monster within.
The media, in need of red meat, are now turning their attention on him, and the disturbing reality is becoming clear for all to see" apart from the staunchest SKS fans who will defend him to the last freebie
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
I notice that Rosie Duffield is being attacked because she only 'abstained' from the WFA vote. I said at the time it was a mistake for anyone to abstain. They eliminated any chance of a Government job they'd ever get, and got next to no advantage from the public out of it. Should have rebelled.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
Of course they can, if they press their advantages until the enemies surrender unconditionally.
Just as we pressed our advantages until the Nazis surrendered unconditionally. Just as the Americans pressed theirs until the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. Just as the Sri Lankans pressed theirs until the Tamil Tigers surrendered unconditionally.
Unconditional surrender ends wars.
Ethnic cleansing also ends historic conflicts. Cf Turkey/Greece
This is what Israel is pursuing. They just can’t say it
Indeed they can’t.
The Gaza Strip would make for some first class seaside real estate when redeveloped.
Pretty much everyone with coastline in the Middle East is now planning to copy Dubai and build hotels on the beaches.
Tourism should be a large attraction for the whole region, especially as it’s mostly off-season for European visitors, somewhere to find sun in winter.
If it dropped the violence and distaste for alcohol and women then the Middle East would be beautifully situated to make a fortune from tourism.
Sharm el-Sheikh was itself of course developed by Israel while it occupied the land, and it became a very successful tourist area which it remains to this day after Egypt accepted peace with Israel.
Egypt accepting it had lost the war ended the cycle of violence with Israel and has led to much more prosperity since, even if not great amounts of freedom. Far better than what the Palestinians have under Hamas.
Sharm-el-Sheikh is lovely, a good example of what they could all be doing. If you stop the war, you start attracting tourists.
Even the Saudis are preparing to relax rules on alcohol and women’s dress in their new resort city on the Red Sea. It’ll be a ‘closed city’ with no locals there. Just across the sea from Sharm, as it happens.
NARRATOR: Sharm-el-Sheikh is not "lovely", unless you you enjoy sterile, dessicated resort-cities inexplicably plonked in hostile desert by a windy coast
If all you want to do is lie on the beach for a week in the middle of British winter…
Remember that most Brits have to experience winter, rather than decamp to the brothels of Bangkok for months on end.
What fools they are
I can barely tolerate September in the New British Climate (TM)
I just walked out to buy some food and a wintry wind was gusting down Parkway and everyone was hunched in winter coats. "Feels like" about 9C? This is Sept 29
The cold weather is God's reminder to burn more Catholics at the stake.
My fractious mood might be related to this: yesterday I discovered that you're never too old to learn new things
I went out on the lash with some old uni friends. The evening conclued at chucking out time at the Groucho. Around 1am we came up with a new game of: "inventing hideous cocktails for the other person to drink"
From this I have learned: "never start inventing cocktails, at the Groucho, at 1am"
The annoying thing is you're indoors and you think oh it looks nice outside and you go out and you find, fuck it is cold, I need to put on my The North Face arctic gear.
I'm sure in the past it only got "proper cold" in late October. That was always the time I would fish out winter coats. Scarves and hats. It was OK then. Late October. Halloween coming. Fireworks and sparklers. Apple bobbing. Misty Bloomsbury mornings, like echoes of the Holborn marshes beneath
Not fucking September, thanksvmuch
Nah, late September has always been a bit chilly, if we're lucky we'll get an Indian summer for a week in October before it starts the slide into winter.
Meteorologically. maybe; psychologically, no
Big thick coats begin a few days before Halloween, that's the RULE
9C in September (albeit late) *feels like* we are being ROBBED of one of our few pleasantly mild months
It's comments like this that remind me that how different the concrete hotbox of London is compared to the rest of the country. None of those deep, frosty mornings or the howling winds off the North Sea.
The comfortable temperature difference between Leon and a Geordie must be, what, 20 degrees?
Just been down to the south coast of England. Had to call the operator of our rented accommodation in to give us a single blanket to replace the thick winter duvet on our bed, after a sweltering first night.
It’s a meagre 8 degrees in my part of Durham at the moment.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
Ireland was a potential threat to British security given its ongoing claim to Northern Ireland. But it was not interested in invading and conquering Great Britain itself.
The catch is that a largeish majority of Palestinians want exactly that, i.e. the invasion and annexation of Israel as a whole accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis from Israel. Which makes any Palestinian state a potential menace to Israel.
And, unfortunately, Israel is making every effort to turn the minority who don't want to the way of the majority.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
They wouldn't accept it before either. That's why it's never happened.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
Ireland was a potential threat to British security given its ongoing claim to Northern Ireland. But it was not interested in invading and conquering Great Britain itself.
The catch is that a largeish majority of Palestinians want exactly that, i.e. the invasion and annexation of Israel as a whole accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis from Israel. Which makes any Palestinian state a potential menace to Israel.
And, unfortunately, Israel is making every effort to turn the minority who don't want to the way of the majority.
Ireland may not have been interested in mounting an invasion of Britain, but the perceived danger lay in the potential of it choosing to help enemies of Britain like France, Spain, or latterly Germany to do so.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
My question was about what negotiated settlement would, objectively - from no particular point of view - be good for good people on all sides. Beyond a two state solution I don't think one exists.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Not a valid comparison
For a true comparison imagine there is a pretty mighty armed group in Ireland constantly trying to break into Great Britain, and always lobbing shells and rockets at Liverpool. Then imagine that one day they do manage to land in Lancashire - about 2000 of them - and they proceed to slaughter huge numbers of Britons - 10,000 of us (that is the equivalent of Oct 7 in population) and imagine this 10,000 consists of British men and women and children, penisioners and kids alike, shot and tortured and massacred in a two day frenzy of bloodlust, just for being British, and then imagine that the Irish kidnap hundreds of other Brits - young and old - and take them back to Dublin to be tortured, raped, brutalised, and paraded on TV to taunt us
And then imagine that this same Irish army promises to do the same again and again, killing as many British people as possible, whenever they get the chance, and they do not seek peace - they only want Britain eradicated and as many Brits dead as possible. Also imagine these Irish fighters are pretty much fascists who throw gays off buildings
How would Britain respond? Would we seek "peace"? There is likely no peace to be had. I suspect we would eventually react like Israel is reacting, now
Not false at all. A valid comparison.
And if you think that Israel's current actions will actually end the conflict then you are as deluded as Bart.
If you think a "ceasefire" will end the conflict any more than any previous ceasefire with Hamas or Hezbollah then you are the delusional one.
But you don't want the conflict to end, you just want the current conflict to simmer down for a while.
You're no better than the Saturday morning trolls who say that Ukraine should just accept peace with Russia so that Ukrainians don't die in the [current] conflict.
Hahahaha. The difference between us is I actually understand these places and know that a military solution is impossible. You are the one who gets a hard on from seeing Israel bombing civilians day in day out.
You claim that a military solution is impossible, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Military solutions have worked the world over.
Negotiating with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah is the real impossible thing. The only possible option, as unpleasant as it is, is the military one. Once the military sphere is won then it gives the space for diplomacy to potentially work to create a more lasting peace, but diplomacy can't work in a sphere where one side doesn't even recognise the others right to exist and views death as a way to afterlife and virgins.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
Two ways it ends.
One is absolute victory/absolute defeat, the 1945 scenario. I suspect the geometry of the map prevents that. (Go on, how big would Israel have to get to not have threats on its borders?)
The other is both leaderships wanting peaceful compromise more than they want victory. That needs remarkably good leaders on both sides, and at the moment neither side has good leaders.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
They wouldn't accept it before either. That's why it's never happened.
No it never happened as the Palestinians were led by leaders who wouldn't accept it.
Israel accepted it repeatedly, most recently in 2000 and originally in 1948.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
There is no reason that can't happen in the future, yes, if in the future the Palestinians are led by leaders who recognise Israel's right to exist.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
Ireland was a potential threat to British security given its ongoing claim to Northern Ireland. But it was not interested in invading and conquering Great Britain itself.
The catch is that a largeish majority of Palestinians want exactly that, i.e. the invasion and annexation of Israel as a whole accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis from Israel. Which makes any Palestinian state a potential menace to Israel.
And, unfortunately, Israel is making every effort to turn the minority who don't want to the way of the majority.
Ireland may not have been interested in mounting an invasion of Britain, but the perceived danger lay in the potential of it choosing to help enemies of Britain like France, Spain, or latterly Germany to do so.
Is there any point in invading Ireland? Just to get Cork, Waterford and Dublin?
Not sure I can be arsed. Suppose bits of Dublin are nice.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
Ireland was a potential threat to British security given its ongoing claim to Northern Ireland. But it was not interested in invading and conquering Great Britain itself.
The catch is that a largeish majority of Palestinians want exactly that, i.e. the invasion and annexation of Israel as a whole accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis from Israel. Which makes any Palestinian state a potential menace to Israel.
And, unfortunately, Israel is making every effort to turn the minority who don't want to the way of the majority.
Ireland may not have been interested in mounting an invasion of Britain, but the perceived danger lay in the potential of it choosing to help enemies of Britain like France, Spain, or latterly Germany to do so.
Is there any point in invading Ireland? Just to get Cork, Waterford and Dublin?
Not sure I can be arsed. Suppose bits of Dublin are nice.
Churchill had to be talked out of it.
Although it was Cobh he wanted rather than Dublin.
My suspicion is there are a great number in the states surrounding Israel who are probably not too unhappy with the latest sequence of events. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are all destabilising influences within states and weakening these and other pro-Iran elements probably helps the actual Governments of Lebanon for example and the Republic of Yemen.
I suspect Saudi Arabia will be quite happy too as will Abbas and Fatah who may be able to regain power in Gaza.
If the likes of Hamas can be both defeated and more importantly seen to be defeated then that creates space for more moderate Fatah leadership to lead the Palestinians.
And if the Palestinians are led by more moderate leadership, the Israelis would gladly elect someone other than Bibi that will negotiate with them, as they've tried to do repeatedly in their past.
But if Hamas and Hezbollah are seen to "win" this conflict and survive leading their respective territories de facto even if not de jure, then there's no chance of peace.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Which, alongside the then highly secret (and often denied) high level talks, was achieved by recognising that the IRA had the support of many in the nationalist community due to perfectly reasonable grievances about blatant discrimination in housing, policing, and other public services, and quietly set about tackling and dealing with these.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
The Middle East is not the UK. Sinn Fein could be negotiated with, Hamas and Hezbollah can not.
Why can Israel not 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah, yet they could defeat Egypt and Sri Lanka could defeat the Tamil Tigers?
They 'defeated' Egypt through means of a conventional war. And even then they didn't stop the armed conflict as such. That was done via a peace treaty on equal terms, not through defeat on the battlefield. In case you missed the Camp David Agreement.
Achieved under a lot of pressure from the Carter administration, one of its relatively few notable achievements — although there was an NPR programme on Friday about how his presidency is more recently being appraised less negatively.
I assume the US is holding back on exerting significant pressure on Israel and the other regional players, until its election is done and dusted.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
Ireland was a potential threat to British security given its ongoing claim to Northern Ireland. But it was not interested in invading and conquering Great Britain itself.
The catch is that a largeish majority of Palestinians want exactly that, i.e. the invasion and annexation of Israel as a whole accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis from Israel. Which makes any Palestinian state a potential menace to Israel.
And, unfortunately, Israel is making every effort to turn the minority who don't want to the way of the majority.
Ireland may not have been interested in mounting an invasion of Britain, but the perceived danger lay in the potential of it choosing to help enemies of Britain like France, Spain, or latterly Germany to do so.
Is there any point in invading Ireland? Just to get Cork, Waterford and Dublin?
Not sure I can be arsed. Suppose bits of Dublin are nice.
Connemara is lovely. Ring of Kerry too. Worth a regiment or so
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
Two ways it ends.
One is absolute victory/absolute defeat, the 1945 scenario. I suspect the geometry of the map prevents that. (Go on, how big would Israel have to get to not have threats on its borders?)
The other is both leaderships wanting peaceful compromise more than they want victory. That needs remarkably good leaders on both sides, and at the moment neither side has good leaders.
Interesting question on how big to not have threats on its borders purely militarily.
Given that Egypt and Jordan recognise Israel's right to exist then hypothetically (not advocating this! Playing along with "Go on ...") then expanding into all of Gaza and the West Bank, so called Greater Israel, would vastly improve its security so long as peace could be maintained in that scenario with Egypt and Jordan.
The problem is the Northern border. There is not only no friendly nation to the North, there's no realistically plausible friendly nation there either any time soon.
However hypothetically if the threats were contained to a thin strip of northern border then that would be a vastly reduced threat, especially if (in the hypothetical "Go on ..." scenario) a buffer zone were created in Southern Lebanon/Syria.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
My question was about what negotiated settlement would, objectively - from no particular point of view - be good for good people on all sides. Beyond a two state solution I don't think one exists.
There is no solution, there is no peace to be had. Not any more, and not outside the realm of miracle (or alien invasion etc,)
The choice is between immediate maximum death as Israel and Palestine fight for existence (and to end the other), or even more death and despair but stretched over many more years
The only other way out I can see is Iran acquiring nukes and saying to Israel, stop or we will nuke you, but then Israel will say the same, and with these two it is quite possible they will actually do it. Not sure that's preferable
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
A free sovereign Ireland is no threat to the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why the same should not apply to a future Palestinian state. Jordan is a good example of how a stable state that was once an enemy can become an asset to Israeli security. When Iran was firing missiles at Israel earlier this year, the Jordanians were using their miilitary to intecept and destroy them.
Ireland was a potential threat to British security given its ongoing claim to Northern Ireland. But it was not interested in invading and conquering Great Britain itself.
The catch is that a largeish majority of Palestinians want exactly that, i.e. the invasion and annexation of Israel as a whole accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis from Israel. Which makes any Palestinian state a potential menace to Israel.
And, unfortunately, Israel is making every effort to turn the minority who don't want to the way of the majority.
Ireland may not have been interested in mounting an invasion of Britain, but the perceived danger lay in the potential of it choosing to help enemies of Britain like France, Spain, or latterly Germany to do so.
Is there any point in invading Ireland? Just to get Cork, Waterford and Dublin?
Not sure I can be arsed. Suppose bits of Dublin are nice.
Connemara is lovely. Ring of Kerry too. Worth a regiment or so
Turns out she's not called Kemi at all, she is using a first name different from her assigned name.
Her full name is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch.
Er........ how would this in any way qualify as woke? I don't think you understand the meaning of that admittedly debatable term.
To be honest I would have thought that insisting people refer to her by her full first name would be the more 'woke' thing to do rather than a shortened and for westerners more convenient, name. Still I haven't seen such things become a lighting rod yet in the culture wars.
My wife has a name that is complicated for non-Spanish speakers. So she abbreviates it to the English translation of the same name.
My surname is so complicated that I only make people I hate pronounce it.
Occasionally, someone annoys me enough....
Cantrell: Sergeant Cantrell. Shemp: How do you spell that? Cantrell: Correctly.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
My question was about what negotiated settlement would, objectively - from no particular point of view - be good for good people on all sides. Beyond a two state solution I don't think one exists.
There is no solution, there is no peace to be had. Not any more, and not outside the realm of miracle (or alien invasion etc,)
The choice is between immediate maximum death as Israel and Palestine fight for existence (and to end the other), or even more death and despair but stretched over many more years
The only other way out I can see is Iran acquiring nukes and saying to Israel, stop or we will nuke you, but then Israel will say the same, and with these two it is quite possible they will actually do it. Not sure that's preferable
Turns out she's not called Kemi at all, she is using a first name different from her assigned name.
Her full name is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch.
Er........ how would this in any way qualify as woke? I don't think you understand the meaning of that admittedly debatable term.
To be honest I would have thought that insisting people refer to her by her full first name would be the more 'woke' thing to do rather than a shortened and for westerners more convenient, name. Still I haven't seen such things become a lighting rod yet in the culture wars.
My wife has a name that is complicated for non-Spanish speakers. So she abbreviates it to the English translation of the same name.
My surname is so complicated that I only make people I hate pronounce it.
I think James Cleverly has had the worst campaign.
Nice unifying guy but I can't recall a single thing he's said or done.
I can for Badenoch, Tugendhat and Jenrick.
Cleverly has come in from about 13 to 8.6 on bf - not sure why.
NOTA has an appeal. MPs could rally round him to get him to the last two, and Jenrick could "lend".
He is the most likely to do the job of stabilising the ship and then handing over in 2-3 years.
Jenrick is probably a case of the more he gets seen, the more members despair...
Yes, but hand over to whom?
In 2-3 years time we'll have the same 120 MPs plus maybe 1-2 more if we're lucky through by-elections or defections.
Maybe it's actually Jenrick for 2-3 years and then Cleverly, Hunt or Tugendhat.
Who knows.
Best hope is that there's someone who was a junior minister under Sunak who shines so brightly in the Shadow Cabinet that they simply have to take over as leader when Jenrick fails.
Anyone of Cabinet rank on July 3 fails the "Yesterday's (wo)man" test.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
Interesting discussion. But, I think, missing one consideration.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
Very few Americans realize that, if Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it!
I mean, that sorta ignores the entire history of the USA. A country that was built on mass immigration.
As so much Musk comes out with, it's BS.
And Musk is an immigrant, which rather belies his belief that immigrants all vote Democrat.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
Interesting discussion. But, I think, missing one consideration.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
You are rather overlooking the role of Netanyahu.
He had literally succoured and sustained Hamas in the naive belief that they were no threat to Israel but while they were there people would want a 'strong' leader (ie him) to see them safe.
And, of course, he's facing spending the rest of his natural span in prison as soon as he's evicted from office, because he makes Trump look honest.
I don't think he arranged the October 7th attack, but he's damn sure provoking further conflict to shore up his own position in Israel which otherwise would be untenable.
Very few Americans realize that, if Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it!
I mean, that sorta ignores the entire history of the USA. A country that was built on mass immigration.
As so much Musk comes out with, it's BS.
And Musk is an immigrant, which rather belies his belief that immigrants all vote Democrat.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
Interesting discussion. But, I think, missing one consideration.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
You are rather overlooking the role of Netanyahu.
He had literally succoured and sustained Hamas in the naive belief that they were no threat to Israel but while they were there people would want a 'strong' leader (ie him) to see them safe.
And, of course, he's facing spending the rest of his natural span in prison as soon as he's evicted from office, because he makes Trump look honest.
I don't think he arranged the October 7th attack, but he's damn sure provoking further conflict to shore up his own position in Israel which otherwise would be untenable.
Thst's quite likely a fair comment. But Netanyahu's culpability doesn't really impinge on the choice facing Israel as a whole.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
Interesting discussion. But, I think, missing one consideration.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
You are rather overlooking the role of Netanyahu.
He had literally succoured and sustained Hamas in the naive belief that they were no threat to Israel but while they were there people would want a 'strong' leader (ie him) to see them safe.
And, of course, he's facing spending the rest of his natural span in prison as soon as he's evicted from office, because he makes Trump look honest.
I don't think he arranged the October 7th attack, but he's damn sure provoking further conflict to shore up his own position in Israel which otherwise would be untenable.
Netanyahu is a fool who should be in jail.
But that doesn't mean that Israel is wrong to be fighting those who wish to destroy it.
Which is why its not just Netanyahu who agrees with the fight, its his Israeli opposition too.
If I were Israeli I'd 100% be voting against Netanyahu if I had a choice, but I would not be voting for pacifists.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
Interesting discussion. But, I think, missing one consideration.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
It's a bit like Hall & Oates. For a while they were ridiculed, as purveyors of pappy, brainless Philadelphian soul-tastica white pop, Cf Big Train, but now we recognise their talent
I'm not the first to make this analogy, obviously, but it is nonetheless acute
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
Interesting discussion. But, I think, missing one consideration.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
It's a bit like Hall & Oates. For a while they were ridiculed, as purveyors of pappy, brainless Philadelphian soul-tastica white pop, Cf the Fast Show, but now we recognise their talent
I'm not the first to make this analogy, obviously, but it is nonetheless acute
I'd certainly put it up there with your most acute analogies.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
Interesting discussion. But, I think, missing one consideration.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
It's a bit like Hall & Oates. For a while they were ridiculed, as purveyors of pappy, brainless Philadelphian soul-tastica white pop, Cf the Fast Show, but now we recognise their talent
I'm not the first to make this analogy, obviously, but it is nonetheless acute
I'd certainly put it up there with your most acute analogies.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
The Middle East is not the UK. Sinn Fein could be negotiated with, Hamas and Hezbollah can not.
Why can Israel not 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah, yet they could defeat Egypt and Sri Lanka could defeat the Tamil Tigers?
They 'defeated' Egypt through means of a conventional war. And even then they didn't stop the armed conflict as such. That was done via a peace treaty on equal terms, not through defeat on the battlefield. In case you missed the Camp David Agreement.
Achieved under a lot of pressure from the Carter administration, one of its relatively few notable achievements — although there was an NPR programme on Friday about how his presidency is more recently being appraised less negatively.
I assume the US is holding back on exerting significant pressure on Israel and the other regional players, until its election is done and dusted.
Also a peace deal that worked by handing over territory and removing settlements. Since then 50 years of peace and generally good relations.
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
Interesting discussion. But, I think, missing one consideration.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
It's a bit like Hall & Oates. For a while they were ridiculed, as purveyors of pappy, brainless Philadelphian soul-tastica white pop, Cf the Fast Show, but now we recognise their talent
I'm not the first to make this analogy, obviously, but it is nonetheless acute
I'd certainly put it up there with your most acute analogies.
Well, thanks. I'd like to claim it as my own but it's hardly that, as we all know. I think it was Davild Miliband at the UN who first noted the similarity between the reputational refurb of, say, "She's Gone" - and its delicately melancholy tunefulness, even as it addresses male heartbreak - with the renewed if grim respect for the Israeli pager-exploder campaign wiping out entire echelons of Hizbullah. You admire the artistry yet you regret the pain
Watching Arne Slot’s Liverpool is like dating a lawyer after a rock star
New head coach’s mature and patient style has taken club to top of Premier League but it is not as scintillating to watch as the intense mayhem of the Jürgen Klopp era
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
Agree. However at the start of a real negotiation those who can take a wide and broad 'objective view from nowhere in particular' - something PB posters are good at - need to be able to give an outline idea of what a settlement which was reasonable and good for good people on all sides and in all relevant places, would look like, and if such a thing can be imagined.
Apart from a two state solution (which both sides appear to reject outright) I can't think of any. Whereas with the island of Ireland I can think of a few possibles.
I think you are right. The only solution is the two state one that is currently rejected - at least by Israel and the terrorist groups. It is not rejected by a lot of the more morderate Palestinians but for them it is a pipe dream as they see themselves being driven off their lands in the West Bank by settlers backed up by the Israeli military.
Is a two-state outcome a solution?
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Yes, the two state solution is gone. A tragedy, but it is gone. After Oct 7 Israel will not accept a Palestinian state next door
Interesting discussion. But, I think, missing one consideration.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
It's a bit like Hall & Oates. For a while they were ridiculed, as purveyors of pappy, brainless Philadelphian soul-tastica white pop, Cf the Fast Show, but now we recognise their talent
I'm not the first to make this analogy, obviously, but it is nonetheless acute
I'd certainly put it up there with your most acute analogies.
I don't know who recommended today's posting by Perun, but you may also be interested to know that the history 'Tuber HistoryBuffs has released a vid on "The Pacific", the first sequel to "Band Of Brothers". Because of the subject, the sudden death of the DVD market, the more disjointed narrative, and the huge budget, "The Pacific" was an enormous financial loss compared to its legendary predecessor. HistoryBuffs' video provides a nice companion piece to LittleWarsTV's dissection of the finances. Enjoy.
Turns out she's not called Kemi at all, she is using a first name different from her assigned name.
Her full name is Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch.
Er........ how would this in any way qualify as woke? I don't think you understand the meaning of that admittedly debatable term.
To be honest I would have thought that insisting people refer to her by her full first name would be the more 'woke' thing to do rather than a shortened and for westerners more convenient, name. Still I haven't seen such things become a lighting rod yet in the culture wars.
My wife has a name that is complicated for non-Spanish speakers. So she abbreviates it to the English translation of the same name.
My surname is so complicated that I only make people I hate pronounce it.
Occasionally, someone annoys me enough....
Cantrell: Sergeant Cantrell. Shemp: How do you spell that? Cantrell: Correctly.
Watching Arne Slot’s Liverpool is like dating a lawyer after a rock star
New head coach’s mature and patient style has taken club to top of Premier League but it is not as scintillating to watch as the intense mayhem of the Jürgen Klopp era
War is horrific, but as horrors go this is impressively efficient
But it also begs the question: why was this chilling accuracy not used against Hamas, why instead did they carpet bomb civilians?
Because Bibi wants to commit genocide/ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, if you follow that, he's not interested in a greater Israel.
Yes, that is my suspicion
If you look at some of the stuff his cabinet have said publicly, such as the below, you can only imagine what they say/do in private.
The EU, France and UK have condemned a senior Israeli minister for suggesting it might be “justified and moral” to starve people in Gaza.
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, sparked international outrage after he said on Wednesday: “No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages.”
Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcasted security camera footage that reportedly showed the sexual assault of a Palestinian detainee from Gaza at Sde Teiman military detention camp. Last week, the detention of the soldiers accused of involvement in the alleged abuse sparked violent riots.
I said at the beginning I suspected this of Israel. It’s the only logic behind their behaviour in Gaza - a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem. Just cleanse them entirely: make Gaza uninhabitable and terrify them out of the West Bank
And if you’re an Israeli looking at October 7 I can see why you might feel that way. The Jewish state cannot tolerate the mere possibility it might happen again - it is existential. AND if you’re going to do this you have to get it done before Iran acquires nukes
So: this will end either with the elimination of any Palestinian homeland or the destruction of Israel
Israel can't defeat Hamas by invading and occupying the Palestinian Authority any more than the UK could defeat the IRA by invading and occupying the Republic of Ireland and West Belfast
They won’t occupy. They will just make Gaza an unliveable wasteland
It already was anyway largely, the West Bank however was perfectly liveable in
I don’t think the Israelis care any more. After October 7 they want to expel all Palestinians because they see them as an existential threat to Jews (and the October 7 attackers made it very clear they wanted to kill every Jew they encountered)
The logic is pretty brutal if you’re an Israeli. Israel can only continue if “Palestine” is extinguished. Hence Gaza. At the same time Israel is now securing its northern border with Lebanon and maybe even taking out the Iranian leadership: might as well get it all done in one go
This all makes perfect sense IF your overwhelming concern is the survival of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. It is also horrendously cruel
It is also disastrous, if they kill lots of Palestinians, many of them innocent of any terrorist links and add lots of innocent Lebanese to the death toll too they will be creating generations of pro Hamas and pro Hezbollah terrorists who weren't there before.
We also need to remember 30% of the population of Lebanon are Christian and 6% of Palestinians are Christian too, they should be naturally pro Israel but won't be if all their churches are bombed and their families driven from their homes
Cut the crap, as long as Hamas and Hezbollah exist there will always be more people joining Hamas and Hezbollah.
As long as they exist, those regions will be blockaded and impoverished and as long as people are impoverished the only way out of poverty or to have any hope is to unfortunately join with Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.
The only way to end the cycle of violence is to metaphorically stuff people's faces with gold, the Marshall Plan works, but the prerequisite of that even being an option is to end the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Not reduce it, not a temporary ceasefire, but to end the threat by destroying those organisations completely.
If that is done the cycle of violence can end, but if there's a ceasefire then it is inevitable that the fighting will resume as without a lasting peace, without development, without opportunities people will see no alternative but to continue the violence.
That isn't going to come from Bibi and/or Smotrich. Bibi is interested in starting in power and avoiding corruption charges: endless war suits him. Smotrich wants genocide, to clear out the non-Jewish populations and create a greater Israel.
Luckily Bibi is not a dictator and Israel is a democracy.
When the threat from the Palestinians is minimised then Israel has been willing to vote for the likes of Begin who negotiated peace with Egypt, or Peres who tried negotiating with the Palestinians, or Barak who was willing to create a Palestinian state as agreed with Clinton in Camp David but unfortunately Arafat walked away from it as he didn't actually want peace.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bibi is I agree he wants endless war and he's been far, far too soft on Hamas which allowed the attacks last year to happen.
Israel needs to defeat Hamas/Hezbollah, not have a ceasefire, then negotiate a peace agreement. Bibi doesn't want that, but most Israelis do, and Israel is a democracy.
Not a word about his assisting in the theft of West Bank land by illegal settlers? Not one?
And Britain never defetaed the Nationalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. We realised it was impossible and had a negotiated settlement. Which whilst far from perfect is sure as hell a lot better than seeing civilians murdered week in week out on the streets of British cities. Israel will never 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah unfortunately. All they will do is cause more death and misery and perpetuate the current hatreds in the Middle East.
The Middle East is not the UK. Sinn Fein could be negotiated with, Hamas and Hezbollah can not.
Why can Israel not 'defeat' Hamas/Hezbollah, yet they could defeat Egypt and Sri Lanka could defeat the Tamil Tigers?
They 'defeated' Egypt through means of a conventional war. And even then they didn't stop the armed conflict as such. That was done via a peace treaty on equal terms, not through defeat on the battlefield. In case you missed the Camp David Agreement.
Achieved under a lot of pressure from the Carter administration, one of its relatively few notable achievements — although there was an NPR programme on Friday about how his presidency is more recently being appraised less negatively.
I assume the US is holding back on exerting significant pressure on Israel and the other regional players, until its election is done and dusted.
Also a peace deal that worked by handing over territory and removing settlements. Since then 50 years of peace and generally good relations.
Carrot and stick.
Defeated militarily and with settlements built on the occupied land that could be removed/handed over once someone was willing to accept peace.
Yet Richard is all up in arms about settlements being built in "Palestinian" land today, despite the fact that's exactly what was done in Egyptian land (see: Sharm etc) and despite the fact that Palestinian leadership has successively and consistently refused to agree the borders anyway and insist the borders are up for negotiations (as they want more, not less, but negotiations can go either way).
Following the playbook with Egypt, Israel building settlements on occupied territory today is conducive to generally good relations in the future, is it not, if it leads to a future where those settlements can be removed/handed over to someone that will recognise Israel's right to exist?
I don't know who recommended today's posting by Perun, but you may also be interested to know that the history 'Tuber HistoryBuffs has released a vid on "The Pacific", the first sequel to "Band Of Brothers". Because of the subject, the sudden death of the DVD market, the more disjointed narrative, and the huge budget, "The Pacific" was an enormous financial loss compared to its legendary predecessor. HistoryBuffs' video provides a nice companion piece to LittleWarsTV's dissection of the finances. Enjoy.
I have the DVD at home; Band of B excelled because it followed the same group of guys (less their casualties) from training in the US through D-Day to the fall of Germany. Pacific jumped about here and there and didn’t command the same compelling narrative. The recently released Masters of the Air did better in recapturing some of the original Band of B spirit, hampered by flying bombing raids over Germany being essentially a repetitive grind of an experience, which the series did well to counter with various side stories of captured airmen and the like, and a few completely imagined scenes of pilots overflying to Soviet held territory and chancing upon the death camps.
I remember a particularly bad job I had while paying my way through college. Data input job from 10pm to 6am.
In the red light district. In an office with glass brick walls. At the height of the heroin and/or jellies ... 'fad'.
Sitting at about 2am while a psycho office manager literally on speed wandered round and round to see if you were keeping up your required 8-10 thousand key-depressions an hour while some poor lassies bum was slapping off the glass bricks.
Then watching the 'post business' ... seepage run down the glass bricks.
I don't know who recommended today's posting by Perun, but you may also be interested to know that the history 'Tuber HistoryBuffs has released a vid on "The Pacific", the first sequel to "Band Of Brothers". Because of the subject, the sudden death of the DVD market, the more disjointed narrative, and the huge budget, "The Pacific" was an enormous financial loss compared to its legendary predecessor. HistoryBuffs' video provides a nice companion piece to LittleWarsTV's dissection of the finances. Enjoy.
I have the DVD at home; Band of B excelled because it followed the same group of guys (less their casualties) from training in the US through D-Day to the fall of Germany. Pacific jumped about here and there and didn’t command the same compelling narrative. The recently released Masters of the Air did better in recapturing some of the original Band of B spirit, hampered by flying bombing raids over Germany being essentially a repetitive grind of an experience, which the series did well to counter with various side stories of captured airmen and the like, and a few completely imagined scenes of pilots overflying to Soviet held territory and chancing upon the death camps.
Masters of the Air was TERRIBLE. It felt like it was written and directed by an inferior subspecies of human
Band of Brothers was superb. Nuanced, clever, emotional, compelling
Comments
On the other hand, Badenoch and Jenrick might be in a better place if we hadn't heard what they had said or done.
Although yes, I think you're deranged.
(If you're confusing me with Leon, you're definitely deranged. One is possessed of the single most brilliant mind on these boards, and the other knaps flint phalluses.)
Starting with 121 MPs, I'm down to about 80 once you discount new MPs, whips, deputy speakers and Select Committee chairs.
It's beginning to feel like one of those school plays where you have to be really bad not to get a role.
We also had an election just this year and he didn't put it in the manifesto.
The media, in need of red meat, are now turning their attention on him, and the disturbing reality is becoming clear for all to see" apart from the staunchest SKS fans who will defend him to the last freebie
All not-Jenrick then needs is a career-ending gaffe or scandal from Bobby J. to win by default. Which isn't impossible.
Too much trying to see everyone's point of view.
Jenrick is probably a case of the more he gets seen, the more members despair...
A free, sovereign, Palestine is potentially a grave threat to Israel's security. I don't see how it can be considered a potential solution when it violates the key objective for one of the parties to the potential agreement. The status quo, where the Palestinians are weaker and so less of a threat, will always be preferable to Israel than allowing a free, sovereign Palestine.
Who is the MP in the wings that can win the next election?
The catch is that a largeish majority of Palestinians want exactly that, i.e. the invasion and annexation of Israel as a whole accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis from Israel. Which makes any Palestinian state a potential menace to Israel.
And, unfortunately, Israel is making every effort to turn the minority who don't want to the way of the majority.
Military solutions have worked the world over.
Negotiating with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah is the real impossible thing. The only possible option, as unpleasant as it is, is the military one. Once the military sphere is won then it gives the space for diplomacy to potentially work to create a more lasting peace, but diplomacy can't work in a sphere where one side doesn't even recognise the others right to exist and views death as a way to afterlife and virgins.
One is absolute victory/absolute defeat, the 1945 scenario. I suspect the geometry of the map prevents that. (Go on, how big would Israel have to get to not have threats on its borders?)
The other is both leaderships wanting peaceful compromise more than they want victory. That needs remarkably good leaders on both sides, and at the moment neither side has good leaders.
Israel accepted it repeatedly, most recently in 2000 and originally in 1948.
Its a shame that the other parties did not.
That leadership is not Hamas.
Not sure I can be arsed. Suppose bits of Dublin are nice.
Although it was Cobh he wanted rather than Dublin.
In 2-3 years time we'll have the same 120 MPs plus maybe 1-2 more if we're lucky through by-elections or defections.
Maybe it's actually Jenrick for 2-3 years and then Cleverly, Hunt or Tugendhat.
Who knows.
This is what the likes of @Richard_Tyndall aren't getting.
If the likes of Hamas can be both defeated and more importantly seen to be defeated then that creates space for more moderate Fatah leadership to lead the Palestinians.
And if the Palestinians are led by more moderate leadership, the Israelis would gladly elect someone other than Bibi that will negotiate with them, as they've tried to do repeatedly in their past.
But if Hamas and Hezbollah are seen to "win" this conflict and survive leading their respective territories de facto even if not de jure, then there's no chance of peace.
I assume the US is holding back on exerting significant pressure on Israel and the other regional players, until its election is done and dusted.
The name which sprang to my mind with 'not actually an MP right now' was James Cracknell. But I'm guessing you don't meam him.
But I would much prefer the return of Aquitaine
Given that Egypt and Jordan recognise Israel's right to exist then hypothetically (not advocating this! Playing along with "Go on ...") then expanding into all of Gaza and the West Bank, so called Greater Israel, would vastly improve its security so long as peace could be maintained in that scenario with Egypt and Jordan.
The problem is the Northern border. There is not only no friendly nation to the North, there's no realistically plausible friendly nation there either any time soon.
However hypothetically if the threats were contained to a thin strip of northern border then that would be a vastly reduced threat, especially if (in the hypothetical "Go on ..." scenario) a buffer zone were created in Southern Lebanon/Syria.
The choice is between immediate maximum death as Israel and Palestine fight for existence (and to end the other), or even more death and despair but stretched over many more years
The only other way out I can see is Iran acquiring nukes and saying to Israel, stop or we will nuke you, but then Israel will say the same, and with these two it is quite possible they will actually do it. Not sure that's preferable
Top,trolling if it is him.
However given the way US courts work I'm sure SCOTUS would say that Trump can own a gun because reasons.
My surname is so complicated that I only make people I hate pronounce it.
Occasionally, someone annoys me enough....
Cantrell: Sergeant Cantrell.
Shemp: How do you spell that?
Cantrell: Correctly.
The "Lucky Fuckers who should've lost to Cov" derby.
I was never going to be happy with any result in this fixture. Except possibly abandonment due to multiple inj... no, let's not go there again.
(Pronounced, ‘Heh’.)
Anyone of Cabinet rank on July 3 fails the "Yesterday's (wo)man" test.
Flip knows who that is, though.
Edit: Apart from Harris will win like Johnson did.
Which is: the Israeli state was completely humiliated by the October massacre. In particular the armed forces and the intelligence services. They couldn't even prevent a pogrom on Israeli soil.
Ultimately it comes down to "what kind of a country are we?" One that, after a bit of symbolic retaliation, accepts what happens and "negotiates". Or one that asserts itself.
The UK faced the same challenge in 1982. We sent a fleet halfway round the world.
I'm frankly not in the least surprised at the Israeli approach. No-one's laughing at the IDF or Mossad now, are they.
He had literally succoured and sustained Hamas in the naive belief that they were no threat to Israel but while they were there people would want a 'strong' leader (ie him) to see them safe.
And, of course, he's facing spending the rest of his natural span in prison as soon as he's evicted from office, because he makes Trump look honest.
I don't think he arranged the October 7th attack, but he's damn sure provoking further conflict to shore up his own position in Israel which otherwise would be untenable.
He has white skin and lots of money.
But that doesn't mean that Israel is wrong to be fighting those who wish to destroy it.
Which is why its not just Netanyahu who agrees with the fight, its his Israeli opposition too.
If I were Israeli I'd 100% be voting against Netanyahu if I had a choice, but I would not be voting for pacifists.
I'm not the first to make this analogy, obviously, but it is nonetheless acute
https://www.cartoonbrew.com/tv/jstache-9787.html
Watching Arne Slot’s Liverpool is like dating a lawyer after a rock star
New head coach’s mature and patient style has taken club to top of Premier League but it is not as scintillating to watch as the intense mayhem of the Jürgen Klopp era
https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/arne-slot-liverpool-premier-league-jurgen-klopp-2r3mfrgh3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnFzwS5Zs48&t=24s
Defeated militarily and with settlements built on the occupied land that could be removed/handed over once someone was willing to accept peace.
Yet Richard is all up in arms about settlements being built in "Palestinian" land today, despite the fact that's exactly what was done in Egyptian land (see: Sharm etc) and despite the fact that Palestinian leadership has successively and consistently refused to agree the borders anyway and insist the borders are up for negotiations (as they want more, not less, but negotiations can go either way).
Following the playbook with Egypt, Israel building settlements on occupied territory today is conducive to generally good relations in the future, is it not, if it leads to a future where those settlements can be removed/handed over to someone that will recognise Israel's right to exist?
@EuropeElects
Austria, national parliament election, Foresight 9:30 PM projection:
FPÖ-PfE: 28.8% (+12.6)
ÖVP-EPP: 26.3% (-11.2)
SPÖ-S&D: 21.1% (-0.1)
NEOS-RE: 9.2% (+1.1)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 8.3% (-5.6)
KPÖ-LEFT: 2.4% (+1.7)
BIER-*: 2% (new)
KEINE-LEFT: 0.6% (+0.1)
LMP-*: 0.6% (new)
+/- vs. last election"
https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/1840476527428817070
Female Labour MPs outnumber the total number of Tory MPs by 3:2
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/argentinas-milei-plans-privatize-state-airline-by-decree-2024-09-27/
But this jumps out:
"Adorni said Aerolineas currently employs 1,204 pilots to fly 81 planes, or nearly 15 pilots per plane."
I wonder what the expected ratio is for an airline using its planes properly 24/7. 3? 5?
In the red light district. In an office with glass brick walls. At the height of the heroin and/or jellies ... 'fad'.
Sitting at about 2am while a psycho office manager literally on speed wandered round and round to see if you were keeping up your required 8-10 thousand key-depressions an hour while some poor lassies bum was slapping off the glass bricks.
Then watching the 'post business' ... seepage run down the glass bricks.
Band of Brothers was superb. Nuanced, clever, emotional, compelling
Pacific was pretty MEH, agreed
Paid top dollar too.