So when are we making this offer of cash to the Palestinians if they drop their self-determination claims and move elsewhere? Is it before or after a punishment beating?
During would be my guess?
Its going to take years of intense fighting to exterminate Hamas and kill all their members until they surrender, and many innocent bystanders will get caught in the crossfire, so the honourable thing to do is both simultaneously.
Some good points from Frank Gardner on "X". The Israelis already said they were going to deal with Hamas once and for all in 2014, and the result was just 2000 dead Palestinians, and, because so much of the population are children, a whole new generation of fighters.
He says Hamas is now as a result about 30,000 -strong, and they know every tunnel and bunker far better than the Israelis ever will. It's just decades of pointless madness, with sick leadership on the Palestinian and Israeli sides indulged and lionised by cheerleaders outside their borders who should know better.
Agreed those lionising terrorism by Hamas should hang their heads in shame.
If that's the case, then Israel should aim to kill tens of thousands of legitimate targets. A shame of the thousands more innocent casualties who might be caught in the crossfire, but Hamas need to be defeated and destroyed.
If anyone wants to get refuge away from the conflict, that should of course be encouraged and catered for.
Your last sentence is the issue . Unless Egypt opens its border then civilian casualties in Gaza are going to go through the roof .
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if Hamas had recruited a lot of ISIS fighters who were grim to begin with and over time have lost any humanity.
I have just watched ITV's report at Kfar Aza and I wept
Here's some good news on a day when that is scarce: "Long regarded by many as an afterthought in the Republican race, Haley is gaining some steam in New Hampshire, leapfrogging Ron DeSantis into a still-distant second behind Trump in some recent polls, as the struggling Florida governor puts the bulk of his time and resources into Iowa’s first-in-the-nation GOP caucus. Boosted by well-received debate performances, slow-but-steady campaigning and a new surge of spending, Haley is trying to seize a narrow opening in a pivotal state. Her pitch has piqued growing interest from moderate voters such as Weir, even as Haley has embraced more polarizing positions on some issues." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/10/09/haley-trump-new-hampshire-primary-presidential/
I would say that Haley now has between a 1 and 10 percent chance of winning the Republican nomination. Not very good betting guide, I admit, but the best I can do, at the moment.
And I am not the only one who thinks she has a better chance. Will Hurd, who was running a no hope campaign of his own, has endorsed her. He has an interesting background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hurd (To say the least.)
And this marks something of a breakthrough for our news organizations; since late in 2015, they began giving disproportionate coverage to the Loser, so disproportionate that it crowded out almost all the coverage of more rational candidates. (I plan to write a letter to the WaPo, commending them for this breakthrough, and urging them not to fire the two reporters who worte the article, or the editor who approved it.)
Reminder: Independents can vote in the Republican primary in New Hampshire.
Some good points from Frank Gardner on "X". The Israelis already said they were going to deal with Hamas once and for all in 2014, and the result was just 2000 dead Palestinians, and, because so much of the population are children, a whole new generation of fighters.
He says Hamas is now as a result about 30,000 -strong, and they know every tunnel and bunker far better than the Israelis ever will. It's just decades of pointless madness, with sick leadership on the Palestinian and Israeli sides indulged and lionised by cheerleaders outside their borders who should know better.
Agreed those lionising terrorism by Hamas should hang their heads in shame.
If that's the case, then Israel should aim to kill tens of thousands of legitimate targets. A shame of the thousands more innocent casualties who might be caught in the crossfire, but Hamas need to be defeated and destroyed.
If anyone wants to get refuge away from the conflict, that should of course be encouraged and catered for.
Your last sentence is the issue . Unless Egypt opens its border then civilian casualties in Gaza are going to go through the roof .
Yes, that's a tragedy which I want to see avoided.
And I'm called inhumane for wanting to avoid that tragedy. 🤦♂️
Don't worry, the babies were obviously all Zionists, and therefore justifiably killed. And it's all our fault anyway.
(/sarcasm)
Hamas have just harmed the Palestinian cause for years. Not that they care...
This comment seems apposite, though some might substitute 'Hamas' for the second use of Palestinian, on the basis of multiple different causes in the region, so harming their cause in certain areas, such as the West, probably doesn't show up on their radar.
“It goes without saying that I’m against baby beheadings. They are not helpful at any time. However we mustn’t forget the baby beheadings that the Israelis will surely do soon, if they haven’t yet”
So when are we making this offer of cash to the Palestinians if they drop their self-determination claims and move elsewhere? Is it before or after a punishment beating?
During would be my guess?
Its going to take years of intense fighting to exterminate Hamas and kill all their members until they surrender, and many innocent bystanders will get caught in the crossfire, so the honourable thing to do is both simultaneously.
The Israelis have tried this so many times. They can't, but they can increase the depraved levels of radicalisation among Hamas youth to even greater extents.
Without a different external approach from both nations like Iran and the U.S, this conflict will just go on for ever, getting more and more violent and degenerated as it goes.
“It goes without saying that I’m against baby beheadings. They are not helpful at any time. However we mustn’t forget the baby beheadings that the Israelis will surely do soon, if they haven’t yet”
WTF, why bring Corbyn into it , you are losing the plot now.
So when are we making this offer of cash to the Palestinians if they drop their self-determination claims and move elsewhere? Is it before or after a punishment beating?
During would be my guess?
Its going to take years of intense fighting to exterminate Hamas and kill all their members until they surrender, and many innocent bystanders will get caught in the crossfire, so the honourable thing to do is both simultaneously.
The Israelis have tried this so many times. They can't, but they can increase the depraved levels of radicalisation among Hamas youth to even greater extents.
Without a different external approach from both nations like Iran and the U.S, this conflict will just go on for ever, getting more and more violent as it goes.
They’ve never marched through Gaza levelling every single building one by one. I fear that is what they might do this time
Some reasonable points from Jack Straw PM, which have even improved my opinion of him somewhat.
A mea culpa for Iraq, and a warning over incorrect responses to major attacks, such as 9-11. He went on to propound the undeniably correct view that Hamas's atrocities have given Israel global sympathy, and that if it continues to place two million people under siege, it will lose that sympathy, in a similar way to the mistakes made by the West after 9-11.
Well, that's all very true. But did he come up with some alternative course of action for Israel to take? Sympathy does not keep Israel safe. Sympathy does not stop murders. Or torture. Or rapes. Or burning people alive. Or decapitating children.
Jews have every reason not to reply on sympathy to keep them safe. They see demos in civilised countries with people shouting about gassing Jews and holding up swastikas and they understandably think that sympathy is not going to get them very far.
So what would Jack Straw have Israel do? In fact, what would those who understandably worry about what an attack on Gaza will mean say Israel should do now?
Ignore the attack? Fight back and if so how? Something else? What?
It's all very well saying "Don't do this". But you need an answer to the question: "What should Israel do?"
Israel could, I suppose, announce tomorrow that provided every Hamas member left Gaza, all the hostages were safely returned to Israel and the Hamas leadership and Iran agreed to recognise Israel's right to exist, it would not bomb Gaza and would start peace negotiations for a Palestinian state in Gaza.
I can't help but feel that after 7th October 2023 the party conferences mean nothing. Lord knows where the world is going to be come the next general election.
Hamas have succeeded in pushing a lot of people - in the West at least - from thinking that it's all too complicated and not wanting to take sides, to firmly backing Israel.
Israel needs to be wary of sending world opinion back the other way. Their need for security and the elimination of Hamas is clear but a war against all Palestinians or a long siege of Gaza risks doing that. The United States might need to urge restraint.
Indeed. There was massive sympathy for the USA initially after 9/11, but squandered.
Keeping world opinion onside while obliterating Gaza is not a straightforward task, but Israel rather prefers the Milwall approach to popularity.
Millwall fans were not hunted to near-extinction by various governments just eighty years ago.
European governments.
The Arab governments that tried to exterminate Jews about 80 years ago are European are they now?
Its not just European governments that have been responsible. That's why its critical that Jews have a homeland of their own, to live in safety and security, which Arab and European and other countries have tried to deny them.
I’m not aware of any attempted genocide against the Jews by Arab national governments about 80 years ago. They tried to stop the creation of an Israeli nation, but their plans did not involve killing all Jews. Not genocidal. Other war crimes may apply.
If you're not aware its because of ignorance.
Yes they tried to "drive the Jews into the sea", which would involve killing them. Indeed Jews were ethnically cleansed out of many Arab nations.
If they'd driven the Israelis "into the sea" then what do you think that entails? That they'd live happily in the water from then on?
You appear to be describing (planned) ethnic cleaning. You repeatedly call for ethnic cleaning yourself, including a few posts up, so I presumed you were fine with ethnic cleansing.
Let’s clear things up. Is ethnic cleansing an OK thing or a bad thing?
Its a bad thing, but not a beyond the pale thing.
It might be a less bad thing than any other option though.
There are no "good" solutions here.
'Ethnic cleansing' almost always includes killing; often mass killing.
"There is a growing revival of European long-distance and sleeper services as the EU promotes less polluting forms of travel, and travellers seek out alternatives to short-haul flights."
Night train extended to link Brussels and Amsterdam to Prague
A familiar feature of stories about war crimes is that they are often provoked by atrocity stories. These are in turn often created by misunderstanding the effects that fire, high explosives and animal depredations have on corpses.
Breaker Morant was convinced that local Boer resistance was committing various atrocities - they weren’t, as it happens. But he was so convinced that he started commuting war crimes of his own.
The photos ALREADY released make it very plain that Hamas were shooting babies in their cribs and children in their beds, and burning families alive
Meanwhile multiple independent journalists from respectable organisations are saying yes, the worst stories are true
Does anyone know if there was anything ISIS was alleged to have done that subsequently turned out to be exaggerated or mistaken? Might be a more relevant precedent than the Boer War.
The other thought that occurs is whether there were any atrocities that ISIS committed that they didn't proudly exhibit themselves?
So when are we making this offer of cash to the Palestinians if they drop their self-determination claims and move elsewhere? Is it before or after a punishment beating?
During would be my guess?
Its going to take years of intense fighting to exterminate Hamas and kill all their members until they surrender, and many innocent bystanders will get caught in the crossfire, so the honourable thing to do is both simultaneously.
The Israelis have tried this so many times. They can't, but they can increase the depraved levels of radicalisation among Hamas youth to even greater extents.
Without a different external approach from both nations like Iran and the U.S, this conflict will just go on for ever, getting more and more violent and degenerated as it goes.
The Israelis have bent over backwards to fight with gloves on for decades. They have the firepower to level Gaza and kill everyone in it if they wanted to, they don't as unlike Hamas they're not terrorists.
2000 dead when Hamas has tens of thousands of members shows how gentle the Israelis have been.
Ukraine can and should fight on until every last Russian is off their territory.
Israel should do the same until every last Hamas fighter is out of Gaza too. Every single one of them. Same as was done against the Tamil Tigers. Unless or until Hamas surrenders, unconditionally, then treat it as war.
Isn’t he being sarcastic? Mocking posters who cheerlead for Sunak? It seems obvious to me, I didn’t say so because I thought everyone knew
@Anabobazina has referenced a story which was not the one I was referring to. The first story immediately after Starmer's speech was Rishi providing aid and assistance to Israel. My point was merely, Starmer's relevance is such, that immediately after his keynote speech Starmer couldn't make the first story in the bulletin.
Where in Starmer's speech did he mention the homeless or the chronically poor? He didn't because they don't vote.
So is @Isam right and you are being ironic, or not? I'm now completely lost.
I don't particularly like Starmer, and I liked Sunak after the fiasco of Johnson and Truss. He seemed like a grown up politician, until the next zero and HS2 row backs. I doubt I would ever vote for him due to his party, but for almost a year he was rather impressive. Particularly with the Windsor framework.
Starmer's iteration of Labour is better than Corbyn's, although there is something rather dark about Starmer. Johnson linking him to Savile hasn't helped.
Some reasonable points from Jack Straw PM, which have even improved my opinion of him somewhat.
A mea culpa for Iraq, and a warning over incorrect responses to major attacks, such as 9-11. He went on to propound the undeniably correct view that Hamas's atrocities have given Israel global sympathy, and that if it continues to place two million people under siege, it will lose that sympathy, in a similar way to the mistakes made by the West after 9-11.
Well, that's all very true. But did he come up with some alternative course of action for Israel to take? Sympathy does not keep Israel safe. Sympathy does not stop murders. Or torture. Or rapes. Or burning people alive. Or decapitating children.
Jews have every reason not to reply on sympathy to keep them safe. They see demos in civilised countries with people shouting about gassing Jews and holding up swastikas and they understandably think that sympathy is not going to get them very far.
So what would Jack Straw have Israel do? In fact, what would those who understandably worry about what an attack on Gaza will mean say Israel should do now?
Ignore the attack? Fight back and if so how? Something else? What?
It's all very well saying "Don't do this". But you need an answer to the question: "What should Israel do?"
Israel could, I suppose, announce tomorrow that provided every Hamas member left Gaza, all the hostages were safely returned to Israel and the Hamas leadership and Iran agreed to recognise Israel's right to exist, it would not bomb Gaza and would start peace negotiations for a Palestinian state in Gaza.
Suppose Hamas's reply is NFW, what then?
I'm inclined to agree with Frank Gardner that the last Israeli incursion into a Gaza left Israel no more safe. If you radicalise hundreds of thousands more of children and teenagers each time, your only other options is literal ethnic cleansing, which the West won't allow.
I don't think Israel or the Palestinian leadership can solve this. Only the U.S. and Iran, can.
Here's some good news on a day when that is scarce: "Long regarded by many as an afterthought in the Republican race, Haley is gaining some steam in New Hampshire, leapfrogging Ron DeSantis into a still-distant second behind Trump in some recent polls, as the struggling Florida governor puts the bulk of his time and resources into Iowa’s first-in-the-nation GOP caucus. Boosted by well-received debate performances, slow-but-steady campaigning and a new surge of spending, Haley is trying to seize a narrow opening in a pivotal state. Her pitch has piqued growing interest from moderate voters such as Weir, even as Haley has embraced more polarizing positions on some issues." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/10/09/haley-trump-new-hampshire-primary-presidential/
I would say that Haley now has between a 1 and 10 percent chance of winning the Republican nomination. Not very good betting guide, I admit, but the best I can do, at the moment.
And I am not the only one who thinks she has a better chance. Will Hurd, who was running a no hope campaign of his own, has endorsed her. He has an interesting background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hurd (To say the least.)
And this marks something of a breakthrough for our news organizations; since late in 2015, they began giving disproportionate coverage to the Loser, so disproportionate that it crowded out almost all the coverage of more rational candidates. (I plan to write a letter to the WaPo, commending them for this breakthrough, and urging them not to fire the two reporters who worte the article, or the editor who approved it.)
Reminder: Independents can vote in the Republican primary in New Hampshire.
BF's USA - Presidential Election 2024 - Nominee Forecast is an interesting market.
We're all waving flags now Waving flags But don't be scared
British Sea Power.
"British Sea Power" - if there was some sort of a conflict today the power would simply be a liability. Our navy has (it seems) no capability rather than its own defence, and they clearly state that they're not up to that.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
What if you are also against mass ethnic cleansing and bombing of civilians?
It isn't compulsory to take sides, and atrocity does not justify counter-atrocity.
You can't have it both ways though. Are they fighting a war or are they terrorists?
If you start a war, you have to expect the other side to fight back. You can't just accuse them of tit-for-tat terrorism without admitting that you are yourself a terrorist.
That fxcking idiot Braverman passing the Terrorism Act 2000.
Remind me who was Prime Minister in 2000? Did you think it was Boris, Truss or Sunak?
The Palestinian flag is not the Hamas flag . At this rate you’d be banning the Irish flag because of the nationalists in NI.
She's not proscribed the Palestinian flag.
What here do you disagree with?
In the letter, Braverman said police should not restrict themselves to potential offences related to the promotion of Hamas, a proscribed organisation.
“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.
“I would encourage police to give similar consideration to the presence of symbols such as swastikas at anti-Israel demonstrations. Context is crucial. Behaviours that are legitimate in some circumstances, for example the waving of a Palestinian flag, may not be legitimate such as when intended to glorify acts of terrorism.
“Nor is it acceptable to drive through Jewish neighbourhoods, or single out Jewish members of the public, to aggressively chant or wave pro-Palestinian symbols at. Where harassment is identified, I would encourage the police to take swift and appropriate enforcement action.
“I encourage all chief officers to ensure that any protests which could exacerbate community tensions by way of offensive placards, chants, or behaviours that could be construed as incitement or harassment, have a strong police presence to ensure perpetrators are appropriately dealt with, and that communities feel protected,” she wrote. Home Office sources confirmed her words had been approved by government lawyers.
Glorifying terrorists is illegal as per the Terrorism Act 2000.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
I think the second is right, but misses something big:
In the last four or five years - and kickstarted by Trump and Kushner - Israel has been normalising its relations with the Muslim Arab world.
If you go back to 2019, only Jordan and Egypt had diplomatic relations with Israel.
Post the Abraham Accords in 2020, you can add the UAE, Bahrain and most recently Morocco.
It looked highly likely that Saudi Arabia would follow this year. And if the Saudis normalized relations, then it is almost inevitable that much of the rest of the Arab world (excluding Iran) would follow.
That's now off the table. Hamas has succeeded in its primary goal; it has stopped Israel and the Arab world reaching something approaching peace.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Why on earth do you persist with this rather childish ranting? Do you really think there's anybody on PB who is in favour of 'decapitating babies in cold blood'? It's just puerile.
Some reasonable points from Jack Straw PM, which have even improved my opinion of him somewhat.
A mea culpa for Iraq, and a warning over incorrect responses to major attacks, such as 9-11. He went on to propound the undeniably correct view that Hamas's atrocities have given Israel global sympathy, and that if it continues to place two million people under siege, it will lose that sympathy, in a similar way to the mistakes made by the West after 9-11.
Well, that's all very true. But did he come up with some alternative course of action for Israel to take? Sympathy does not keep Israel safe. Sympathy does not stop murders. Or torture. Or rapes. Or burning people alive. Or decapitating children.
Jews have every reason not to reply on sympathy to keep them safe. They see demos in civilised countries with people shouting about gassing Jews and holding up swastikas and they understandably think that sympathy is not going to get them very far.
So what would Jack Straw have Israel do? In fact, what would those who understandably worry about what an attack on Gaza will mean say Israel should do now?
Ignore the attack? Fight back and if so how? Something else? What?
It's all very well saying "Don't do this". But you need an answer to the question: "What should Israel do?"
Israel could, I suppose, announce tomorrow that provided every Hamas member left Gaza, all the hostages were safely returned to Israel and the Hamas leadership and Iran agreed to recognise Israel's right to exist, it would not bomb Gaza and would start peace negotiations for a Palestinian state in Gaza.
Suppose Hamas's reply is NFW, what then?
I'm inclined to agree with Frank Gardner that the last Israeli incursion into a Gaza left Israel no more safe. If you radicalise hundreds of thousands more of children and teenagers each time, your only other options is literal ethnic cleansing, which the West won't allow.
I don't think Israel or the Palestinian leadership can solve this. Only the U.S. and Iran, can.
Regime change in Iran (somehow) maybe the best hope for peace in the Middle East. As long as there's a state run by fundamentalists whose explicit goal is to wipe out Israel, and who fund and arm a group in Gaza whose aim is the same, it's difficult to see how an Israeli government can agree to lifting the kind of border restrictions and privations that would get the ball rolling again on peace.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Why on earth do you persist with this rather childish ranting? Do you really think there's anybody on PB who is in favour of 'decapitating babies in cold blood'? It's just puerile.
I don't think there's anyone directly in favour of decapitating babies in cold blood.
I do think there's people who dislike Jews/Israel enough that sufficient force being used against those terrorists to stop babies being decapitated in cold blood isn't acceptable to them.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Why on earth do you persist with this rather childish ranting? Do you really think there's anybody on PB who is in favour of 'decapitating babies in cold blood'? It's just puerile.
There are some people on here who do seem to be ignoring it though, and instead seem keen to talk about Israel attacking Gaza in response, or how it's all our fault (tm).
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
I think the second is right, but misses something big:
In the last four or five years - and kickstarted by Trump and Kushner - Israel has been normalising its relations with the Muslim Arab world.
If you go back to 2019, only Jordan and Egypt had diplomatic relations with Israel.
Post the Abraham Accords in 2020, you can add the UAE, Bahrain and most recently Morocco.
It looked highly likely that Saudi Arabia would follow this year. And if the Saudis normalized relations, then it is almost inevitable that much of the rest of the Arab world (excluding Iran) would follow.
That's now off the table. Hamas has succeeded in its primary goal; it has stopped Israel and the Arab world reaching something approaching peace.
I wouldn't be so sure that it's off the table. I thought MBS's statement in support of the Palestinians' rights "to a decent life" was quite carefully worded.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
I think the second is right, but misses something big:
In the last four or five years - and kickstarted by Trump and Kushner - Israel has been normalising its relations with the Muslim Arab world.
If you go back to 2019, only Jordan and Egypt had diplomatic relations with Israel.
Post the Abraham Accords in 2020, you can add the UAE, Bahrain and most recently Morocco.
It looked highly likely that Saudi Arabia would follow this year. And if the Saudis normalized relations, then it is almost inevitable that much of the rest of the Arab world (excluding Iran) would follow.
That's now off the table. Hamas has succeeded in its primary goal; it has stopped Israel and the Arab world reaching something approaching peace.
That may yet be temporary - but that depends on the events of the next few months.
So when are we making this offer of cash to the Palestinians if they drop their self-determination claims and move elsewhere? Is it before or after a punishment beating?
During would be my guess?
Its going to take years of intense fighting to exterminate Hamas and kill all their members until they surrender, and many innocent bystanders will get caught in the crossfire, so the honourable thing to do is both simultaneously.
The Israelis have tried this so many times. They can't, but they can increase the depraved levels of radicalisation among Hamas youth to even greater extents.
Without a different external approach from both nations like Iran and the U.S, this conflict will just go on for ever, getting more and more violent and degenerated as it goes.
The Israelis have bent over backwards to fight with gloves on for decades. They have the firepower to level Gaza and kill everyone in it if they wanted to, they don't as unlike Hamas they're not terrorists.
2000 dead when Hamas has tens of thousands of members shows how gentle the Israelis have been.
Ukraine can and should fight on until every last Russian is off their territory.
Israel should do the same until every last Hamas fighter is out of Gaza too. Every single one of them. Same as was done against the Tamil Tigers. Unless or until Hamas surrenders, unconditionally, then treat it as war.
Israel does indeed have the firepower to level Gaza. They've made a start.
The death toll has risen to more than 1,000 in Israel, according to its embassy in Washington, and at least 770 in Gaza, according to the city’s health ministry.
Israel has responded by unleashing fierce airstrikes on Gaza, where locals have described entire districts as “erased”.
More than 180,000 people in Gaza have been made homeless, with many huddling on streets or in schools, the United Nations reported.
The number of civilian victims on both sides is raising alarms for international authorities.
If this stuff is confirmed, then Hamas has gone full on death cult.
1,500 lads on a one-way trip across the border. Kill as many as they can before their fast-track to paradise.
Fecking evil nutters.
That is part of the problem: they really do believe God is on their side, and literally will take them to paradise.
Oh my name it ain't nothin' My age it means less The country I come from Is called the Midwest I was taught and brought up there The laws to abide And that land that I live in Has God on its side
My favourite ( from memory)
The Second World War boys came to an end We forgave the Germans and then we were friends. Though they murdered 6m in the ovens they fried The Germans now too have God on their side.
Before this, my stance on Israel was "it seems very complicated." Now, I want the flag tattooed on my arm. Seeing those fuckers chanting "gas the Jews" here in the Australian paradise, right in front of the Opera House, has radicalised me. https://twitter.com/IonaItalia/status/1711604449830129951
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
Their main objective is to put themselves at the centre of the Palestinian issue having been sidelined since Trump and then Biden outsourced the matter to MBS. The emergent Riyadh - Tel Aviv axis greatly displeased Hamas and they've had only had gestures of solidarity from Saudi that are as tepid as a cup of Hejazi coffee.
On the basis that it's a sharp reminder that there is no resolution to the Palestinian question that doesn't involve Hamas: Mission Accomplished.
Hamas has threatened to execute hostages, Biden says. “The brutality of Hamas’s blood thirstiness brings to mind the worst rampages of ISIS. This is terrorism.”
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many Israeli civilian casualties are acceptable to you?
We're all waving flags now Waving flags But don't be scared
British Sea Power.
"British Sea Power" - if there was some sort of a conflict today the power would simply be a liability. Our navy has (it seems) no capability rather than its own defence, and they clearly state that they're not up to that.
British Sea Power are a band, and a damn fine one. Now called just Sea Power.
So when are we making this offer of cash to the Palestinians if they drop their self-determination claims and move elsewhere? Is it before or after a punishment beating?
During would be my guess?
Its going to take years of intense fighting to exterminate Hamas and kill all their members until they surrender, and many innocent bystanders will get caught in the crossfire, so the honourable thing to do is both simultaneously.
The Israelis have tried this so many times. They can't, but they can increase the depraved levels of radicalisation among Hamas youth to even greater extents.
Without a different external approach from both nations like Iran and the U.S, this conflict will just go on for ever, getting more and more violent and degenerated as it goes.
The Israelis have bent over backwards to fight with gloves on for decades. They have the firepower to level Gaza and kill everyone in it if they wanted to, they don't as unlike Hamas they're not terrorists.
2000 dead when Hamas has tens of thousands of members shows how gentle the Israelis have been.
Ukraine can and should fight on until every last Russian is off their territory.
Israel should do the same until every last Hamas fighter is out of Gaza too. Every single one of them. Same as was done against the Tamil Tigers. Unless or until Hamas surrenders, unconditionally, then treat it as war.
Israel does indeed have the firepower to level Gaza. They've made a start.
The death toll has risen to more than 1,000 in Israel, according to its embassy in Washington, and at least 770 in Gaza, according to the city’s health ministry.
Israel has responded by unleashing fierce airstrikes on Gaza, where locals have described entire districts as “erased”.
More than 180,000 people in Gaza have been made homeless, with many huddling on streets or in schools, the United Nations reported.
The number of civilian victims on both sides is raising alarms for international authorities.
That's a miniscule number of deaths in this war so far considering that Hamas reportedly have 30,000 members apparently.
To put into context, at least a quarter of a million people have been killed in the war in Ukraine so far in barely a year and a half.
If that many die and Hamas has been eradicated, then I feel sorry for each and every one of the deaths, but starting a war was their choice [again] and Israel's sole ambition has to be to win the war as well as possible.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
That fxcking idiot Braverman passing the Terrorism Act 2000.
Remind me who was Prime Minister in 2000? Did you think it was Boris, Truss or Sunak?
The Palestinian flag is not the Hamas flag . At this rate you’d be banning the Irish flag because of the nationalists in NI.
She's not proscribed the Palestinian flag.
What here do you disagree with?
In the letter, Braverman said police should not restrict themselves to potential offences related to the promotion of Hamas, a proscribed organisation.
“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.
“I would encourage police to give similar consideration to the presence of symbols such as swastikas at anti-Israel demonstrations. Context is crucial. Behaviours that are legitimate in some circumstances, for example the waving of a Palestinian flag, may not be legitimate such as when intended to glorify acts of terrorism.
“Nor is it acceptable to drive through Jewish neighbourhoods, or single out Jewish members of the public, to aggressively chant or wave pro-Palestinian symbols at. Where harassment is identified, I would encourage the police to take swift and appropriate enforcement action.
“I encourage all chief officers to ensure that any protests which could exacerbate community tensions by way of offensive placards, chants, or behaviours that could be construed as incitement or harassment, have a strong police presence to ensure perpetrators are appropriately dealt with, and that communities feel protected,” she wrote. Home Office sources confirmed her words had been approved by government lawyers.
Glorifying terrorists is illegal as per the Terrorism Act 2000.
It’s worth noting that in Northern Ireland, banning/restricting parades of ethnic… incivility?…. by both sides is a big part of the peace process.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Why on earth do you persist with this rather childish ranting? Do you really think there's anybody on PB who is in favour of 'decapitating babies in cold blood'? It's just puerile.
There are some people on here who do seem to be ignoring it though, and instead seem keen to talk about Israel attacking Gaza in response, or how it's all our fault (tm).
We are into football scarf waving territory on here. Pick your side.
No one except the Corbyn fan club can possibly not feel revulsion at what has been exacted upon innocent Israeli citizens. Much like it was difficult not to condemn 9/11 for the same reason. Bibi needs a win. A siege of Gaza leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians dead may do the trick. I would argue he may have erased Hamas from the face of the earth, but at an horrific collateral cost
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
Some good points from Frank Gardner on "X". The Israelis already said they were going to deal with Hamas once and for all in 2014, and the result was just 2000 dead Palestinians, and, because so much of the population are children, a whole new generation of even more radicalised fighters.
He says Hamas is now as a result about 30,000 -strong, and they know every tunnel and bunker far better than the Israelis ever will. It's just decades of pointless madness, with sick leadership on the Palestinian and Israeli sides indulged and worsened by cheerleaders outside their borders who should know better.
The alternatives are the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, or simply cutting off all supplies, and letting starvation and diseases take their course.
Fighting Hamas block by block is probably the least inhumane option.
Yuan Yi Zhu @yuanyi_z Follow I am wary of speech-based crimes in general, but if it's a crime to send Grenfell Tower jokes online why isn't this being treated the same way?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many Israeli civilian casualties are acceptable to you?
None ! I find it really annoying that anytime anyone is worried about civilian casualties in Gaza they’re portrayed as not caring about the Israeli deaths . You can be disgusted with what’s happened and still not want to see the bodies piling up in Gaza .
That fxcking idiot Braverman passing the Terrorism Act 2000.
Remind me who was Prime Minister in 2000? Did you think it was Boris, Truss or Sunak?
The Palestinian flag is not the Hamas flag . At this rate you’d be banning the Irish flag because of the nationalists in NI.
She's not proscribed the Palestinian flag.
What here do you disagree with?
In the letter, Braverman said police should not restrict themselves to potential offences related to the promotion of Hamas, a proscribed organisation.
“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.
“I would encourage police to give similar consideration to the presence of symbols such as swastikas at anti-Israel demonstrations. Context is crucial. Behaviours that are legitimate in some circumstances, for example the waving of a Palestinian flag, may not be legitimate such as when intended to glorify acts of terrorism.
“Nor is it acceptable to drive through Jewish neighbourhoods, or single out Jewish members of the public, to aggressively chant or wave pro-Palestinian symbols at. Where harassment is identified, I would encourage the police to take swift and appropriate enforcement action.
“I encourage all chief officers to ensure that any protests which could exacerbate community tensions by way of offensive placards, chants, or behaviours that could be construed as incitement or harassment, have a strong police presence to ensure perpetrators are appropriately dealt with, and that communities feel protected,” she wrote. Home Office sources confirmed her words had been approved by government lawyers.
Glorifying terrorists is illegal as per the Terrorism Act 2000.
Given how many of its supporters identify the Palestinian cause with the cause of murderous anti=semitism, a ban on the flag at demonstrations would not be unfair.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many Israeli civilian casualties are acceptable to you?
None ! I find it really annoying that anytime anyone is worried about civilian casualties in Gaza they’re portrayed as not caring about the Israeli deaths . You can be disgusted with what’s happened and still not want to see the bodies piling up in Gaza .
So you agree Hamas should be destroyed in full then? Complete and utter defeat, like happened to the Tamils?
Or are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
I don't want to see that, I want to see Palestinians who want to leave the conflict offered a way out.
You can see the danger on their faces. Really serious
In my darker moments I think we are slipping increasingly into a world war.
It does feel like it. I have not lived through a period like this - most of us millennials have no idea what to expect. But it feels… significant. Like the existing security order has shifted
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many Israeli civilian casualties are acceptable to you?
And that's why the problem is such a stinker.
It might be unwise to shoehorn a bit of Christian thinking into a conflict between Jews and Muslims, but Just War theory has a lot to say about both when you are justified in declaring war and how you conduct it.
But if your opponent is prepared to fight unjustly, should you stick to the military equivalent of Queensbury Rules? Even if it makes it harder to win?
And from that point of view, even if you think (as I do) that Israel has excellent reasons to retaliate, that has to come with a caveat, something like "please don't become the monster in order to save yourself from the monster". And to weep for the innocent and the not-entirely-innocent in the middle.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
You can see the danger on their faces. Really serious
In my darker moments I think we are slipping increasingly into a world war.
So do I. Mind you if it does I’ve had a pretty nice life and it is only the shit years at the end to come, and it will be quick and for those left it will probably be like the TV film, Threads.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
That closed Egyptian border is something Egypt has control over. If it cares about innocent civilians caught up in this.
"That was one of the sharpest, even angriest condemnations of terrorism in Israel that I’ve ever heard from an American president in covering the White House since the 1990s. Biden offered no equivocation and made no effort to urge restraints on Israel’s response. He wanted to make sure there was no daylight between him and Israel at this time."
Israel is readying for a months-long ground campaign in Gaza, an Egyptian official tells The Times of Israel, saying that this message has been passed along from Jerusalem to Cairo.
Sleepy Joe unequivocal backing of Israel doesn't make it sound like he will be telling the Israeli, "leave it, its not worth, Sharon" after a few days of bombing.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
All these arguments could have been used against fighting World War 2 against the Nazis. Do you think that was wrong?
A familiar feature of stories about war crimes is that they are often provoked by atrocity stories. These are in turn often created by misunderstanding the effects that fire, high explosives and animal depredations have on corpses.
Breaker Morant was convinced that local Boer resistance was committing various atrocities - they weren’t, as it happens. But he was so convinced that he started commuting war crimes of his own.
The photos ALREADY released make it very plain that Hamas were shooting babies in their cribs and children in their beds, and burning families alive
Meanwhile multiple independent journalists from respectable organisations are saying yes, the worst stories are true
Does anyone know if there was anything ISIS was alleged to have done that subsequently turned out to be exaggerated or mistaken? Might be a more relevant precedent than the Boer War.
The other thought that occurs is whether there were any atrocities that ISIS committed that they didn't proudly exhibit themselves?
In the case of ISIS, much like the Imperial Japanese Army, they seem to have read their own press and decided “we can do worse than that”
The point I was making was that before everyone starts going all @Leon and advocating some light recreational genocide, a bit of thinking is a good idea.
Otherwise you end up in the Peruvian War with the Shining Path. There is that nice video of the guy they caught after he murdered the local mayor and blew up the body. So, for LOLs, they tied him to a chair. And laid a spiral of slow fuse round and round. Ending with some dynamite under the chair. So he got to contemplate… and that’s a fraction of how bad it got, in the end.
You can see the danger on their faces. Really serious
In my darker moments I think we are slipping increasingly into a world war.
At the least we seem to be entering a period of renewed open warfare.
Yes, there have been wars in the last decades, but quite a few areas seem to be flaring up. Russia in Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Armenia, Israel and Palestine. In due course China and Taiwan? Serbia and Kosovo? Lebanon and Israel?
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Yes it’s tricky. But hundreds of thousands of people are soon going to be extremely thirsty.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many Israeli civilian casualties are acceptable to you?
None ! I find it really annoying that anytime anyone is worried about civilian casualties in Gaza they’re portrayed as not caring about the Israeli deaths . You can be disgusted with what’s happened and still not want to see the bodies piling up in Gaza .
So you agree Hamas should be destroyed in full then? Complete and utter defeat, like happened to the Tamils?
Or are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?
In an ideal world Hamas no longer exists but that’s not the world we live in . I do not want to see thousands of civilian deaths . Jeez it’s like some couldn’t care less if hundreds of thousands are killed in Gaza. How many children need to die ! I’m appalled at what’s happened and sorry I just don’t want to see thousands of children killed in Gaza to add to the horror .
Comments
Its going to take years of intense fighting to exterminate Hamas and kill all their members until they surrender, and many innocent bystanders will get caught in the crossfire, so the honourable thing to do is both simultaneously.
I have no words for this
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/10/09/haley-trump-new-hampshire-primary-presidential/
I would say that Haley now has between a 1 and 10 percent chance of winning the Republican nomination. Not very good betting guide, I admit, but the best I can do, at the moment.
And I am not the only one who thinks she has a better chance. Will Hurd, who was running a no hope campaign of his own, has endorsed her. He has an interesting background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hurd (To say the least.)
And this marks something of a breakthrough for our news organizations; since late in 2015, they began giving disproportionate coverage to the Loser, so disproportionate that it crowded out almost all the coverage of more rational candidates. (I plan to write a letter to the WaPo, commending them for this breakthrough, and urging them not to fire the two reporters who worte the article, or the editor who approved it.)
Reminder: Independents can vote in the Republican primary in New Hampshire.
And I'm called inhumane for wanting to avoid that tragedy. 🤦♂️
... shall be free"
Free to westerners with the cause = free to go about daily business
Free for Palestinians = free of Jews ?
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/10/people-supporting-hamas-in-uk-will-be-held-to-account-says-rishi-sunak
“It goes without saying that I’m against baby beheadings. They are not helpful at any time. However we mustn’t forget the baby beheadings that the Israelis will surely do soon, if they haven’t yet”
Without a different external approach from both nations like Iran and the U.S, this conflict will just go on for ever, getting more and more violent and degenerated as it goes.
They’ve never marched through Gaza levelling every single building one by one. I fear that is what they might do this time
https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1711769812731396192?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Jews have every reason not to reply on sympathy to keep them safe. They see demos in civilised countries with people shouting about gassing Jews and holding up swastikas and they understandably think that sympathy is not going to get them very far.
So what would Jack Straw have Israel do? In fact, what would those who understandably worry about what an attack on Gaza will mean say Israel should do now?
Ignore the attack? Fight back and if so how? Something else? What?
It's all very well saying "Don't do this". But you need an answer to the question: "What should Israel do?"
Israel could, I suppose, announce tomorrow that provided every Hamas member left Gaza, all the hostages were safely returned to Israel and the Hamas leadership and Iran agreed to recognise Israel's right to exist, it would not bomb Gaza and would start peace negotiations for a Palestinian state in Gaza.
Suppose Hamas's reply is NFW, what then?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
"There is a growing revival of European long-distance and sleeper services as the EU promotes less polluting forms of travel, and travellers seek out alternatives to short-haul flights."
Night train extended to link Brussels and Amsterdam to Prague
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/night-train-extended-to-link-brussels-and-amsterdam-with-prague
It isn't compulsory to take sides, and atrocity does not justify counter-atrocity.
The other thought that occurs is whether there were any atrocities that ISIS committed that they didn't proudly exhibit themselves?
2000 dead when Hamas has tens of thousands of members shows how gentle the Israelis have been.
Ukraine can and should fight on until every last Russian is off their territory.
Israel should do the same until every last Hamas fighter is out of Gaza too. Every single one of them. Same as was done against the Tamil Tigers. Unless or until Hamas surrenders, unconditionally, then treat it as war.
Waving flags
But don't be scared
British Sea Power.
Starmer's iteration of Labour is better than Corbyn's, although there is something rather dark about Starmer. Johnson linking him to Savile hasn't helped.
I'd much prefer the ghost of Harold Wilson.
If you're against the bombing of civilians then support the destruction of Hamas.
I don't think Israel or the Palestinian leadership can solve this. Only the U.S. and Iran, can.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.216990085
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
Remind me who was Prime Minister in 2000? Did you think it was Boris, Truss or Sunak?
If you start a war, you have to expect the other side to fight back. You can't just accuse them of tit-for-tat terrorism without admitting that you are yourself a terrorist.
"9 per cent of workers said they prefer gravy or mushy peas on their Full English."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-12589231/The-ultimate-English-breakfast-revealed-Fried-eggs-bacon-sausages-essential-black-pudding-hash-browns-go.html
What here do you disagree with?
In the letter, Braverman said police should not restrict themselves to potential offences related to the promotion of Hamas, a proscribed organisation.
“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.
“I would encourage police to give similar consideration to the presence of symbols such as swastikas at anti-Israel demonstrations. Context is crucial. Behaviours that are legitimate in some circumstances, for example the waving of a Palestinian flag, may not be legitimate such as when intended to glorify acts of terrorism.
“Nor is it acceptable to drive through Jewish neighbourhoods, or single out Jewish members of the public, to aggressively chant or wave pro-Palestinian symbols at. Where harassment is identified, I would encourage the police to take swift and appropriate enforcement action.
“I encourage all chief officers to ensure that any protests which could exacerbate community tensions by way of offensive placards, chants, or behaviours that could be construed as incitement or harassment, have a strong police presence to ensure perpetrators are appropriately dealt with, and that communities feel protected,” she wrote. Home Office sources confirmed her words had been approved by government lawyers.
Glorifying terrorists is illegal as per the Terrorism Act 2000.
In the last four or five years - and kickstarted by Trump and Kushner - Israel has been normalising its relations with the Muslim Arab world.
If you go back to 2019, only Jordan and Egypt had diplomatic relations with Israel.
Post the Abraham Accords in 2020, you can add the UAE, Bahrain and most recently Morocco.
It looked highly likely that Saudi Arabia would follow this year. And if the Saudis normalized relations, then it is almost inevitable that much of the rest of the Arab world (excluding Iran) would follow.
That's now off the table. Hamas has succeeded in its primary goal; it has stopped Israel and the Arab world reaching something approaching peace.
I do think there's people who dislike Jews/Israel enough that sufficient force being used against those terrorists to stop babies being decapitated in cold blood isn't acceptable to them.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
Sure as hell PB won't.
The death toll has risen to more than 1,000 in Israel, according to its embassy in Washington, and at least 770 in Gaza, according to the city’s health ministry.
Israel has responded by unleashing fierce airstrikes on Gaza, where locals have described entire districts as “erased”.
More than 180,000 people in Gaza have been made homeless, with many huddling on streets or in schools, the United Nations reported.
The number of civilian victims on both sides is raising alarms for international authorities.
The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, said: “International humanitarian law is clear: the obligation to take constant care to spare the civilian population and civilian objects remains applicable throughout the attacks.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/kfar-aza-kibbutz-attack-hamas-israel-babies-war-b1112582.html
The Second World War boys came to an end
We forgave the Germans and then we were friends.
Though they murdered 6m in the ovens they fried
The Germans now too have God on their side.
https://twitter.com/IonaItalia/status/1711604449830129951
On the basis that it's a sharp reminder that there is no resolution to the Palestinian question that doesn't involve Hamas: Mission Accomplished.
Hamas has threatened to execute hostages, Biden says. “The brutality of Hamas’s blood thirstiness brings to mind the worst rampages of ISIS. This is terrorism.”
To put into context, at least a quarter of a million people have been killed in the war in Ukraine so far in barely a year and a half.
If that many die and Hamas has been eradicated, then I feel sorry for each and every one of the deaths, but starting a war was their choice [again] and Israel's sole ambition has to be to win the war as well as possible.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
No one except the Corbyn fan club can possibly not feel revulsion at what has been exacted upon innocent Israeli citizens. Much like it was difficult not to condemn 9/11 for the same reason. Bibi needs a win. A siege of Gaza leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians dead may do the trick. I would argue he may have erased Hamas from the face of the earth, but at an horrific collateral cost
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
You can see the danger on their faces. Really serious
Fighting Hamas block by block is probably the least inhumane option.
Yuan Yi Zhu
@yuanyi_z
Follow
I am wary of speech-based crimes in general, but if it's a crime to send Grenfell Tower jokes online why isn't this being treated the same way?
Or are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
It might be unwise to shoehorn a bit of Christian thinking into a conflict between Jews and Muslims, but Just War theory has a lot to say about both when you are justified in declaring war and how you conduct it.
But if your opponent is prepared to fight unjustly, should you stick to the military equivalent of Queensbury Rules? Even if it makes it harder to win?
And from that point of view, even if you think (as I do) that Israel has excellent reasons to retaliate, that has to come with a caveat, something like "please don't become the monster in order to save yourself from the monster". And to weep for the innocent and the not-entirely-innocent in the middle.
SNP: 33% (-5)
LAB: 32% (+5)
CON: 20% (+4)
LDM: 5% (-2)
GRN: 5% (-1)
RFM: 2% (-2)
Via @yougov, 2-6 Oct.
Changes w/ 8-13 Sep."
NY Times live blog
Sleepy Joe unequivocal backing of Israel doesn't make it sound like he will be telling the Israeli, "leave it, its not worth, Sharon" after a few days of bombing.
The point I was making was that before everyone starts going all @Leon and advocating some light recreational genocide, a bit of thinking is a good idea.
Otherwise you end up in the Peruvian War with the Shining Path. There is that nice video of the guy they caught after he murdered the local mayor and blew up the body. So, for LOLs, they tied him to a chair. And laid a spiral of slow fuse round and round. Ending with some dynamite under the chair. So he got to contemplate… and that’s a fraction of how bad it got, in the end.
Yes, there have been wars in the last decades, but quite a few areas seem to be flaring up. Russia in Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Armenia, Israel and Palestine. In due course China and Taiwan? Serbia and Kosovo? Lebanon and Israel?
I realise that this could be a tweet from any day of the week, but he is particularly odious on this occasion.
Scottish Parliament will not fly Israeli flag in decision involving MSP who defended Hamas attacks
@alexmassie
A small thing in the scheme of things but, my, what a shabby and depressing and revealing one.
I just dont feel this gets enough traction in the thinking on US election 2024.
She will be massively under focus given Biden's age.
Is she up to the test?
Trump is cunning - he will pick a Veep who contrasts massively with Harris.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.