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 .
It's when people only state their concern about the civilian casualties on one side. Particularly when it's the side that's just committed various atrocities. The truth is the only side that we should have concern for are the innocent civilians on *both* sides - and that means Palestinians and Israelis.
I would love there to be an easy answer to this. Heck, I'd love *any* answer. But I fear some on here would criticise any response Israel makes, whilst ignoring what's just occurred.
If this happened in the UK, would you really call on us not to respond?
If it happened in the UK, the caring, pacifist, element of the Left, would certainly be drawing attention to all of our sins and crimes that had "provoked" the atrocity. I could write the things that Owen Jones, Mar
As a dad of two Jewish kids today has been incredibly upsetting.
I’m a leftist. I believe in redistribution of wealth. I believe in equity of opportunity. I believe in peace and kindness. Seeing these f*cking scumbags like Jones taking up the Hamas cause makes me livid. Killing kids in front of their parents. Massacres. And this weird uncritical devotion to the anti-Israel cause - the mask has totally slipped now. These people hate Jews and want them to die.
Unfortunately the left and the right have always had antisemite elements.
The right is sort of logical* in the we hate the "other" kind of mentality and the "other" is looking to replace "us".
The left is mixed up in this binary oppressed vs oppressor, in which those deemed the oppressor are always deemed ultimately to be to blame regardless of what those they deemed oppressed did...so you get the blind spots for the Jews are all powerful, connected, run the world etc tropes, and hence why you can get an Owen Jones who is pro LGBT+, but will also try and muddy the water for regimes who would have him killed in an instant.
* I don't mean its true, but their hatred of the "other" is consistent.
The notion that it’s not racism if you’re “punching up.”
Jews are wealthier than average, and hugely involved in cultural life, therefore it’s not racism to hate them.
After the London bombings, Livingstone’s formulation that it was an evil attack on working class Londoners got noticed. It am certainly reeked of “if they only blown up a bankers dinner, that would have been AOK”
Given what we know the bankers were doing at the time, and the effect it had, it would have been an outcome with at least a silver lining.
Possible Conservative gains on those numbers in Moray, Angus and the glens and Perth and Kinross-shire. ( names abbreviated a bit).
Indeed. SNP lead over Tories down from 20% to 13% compared to GE2019.
Maybe Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber too? LAB have no chance there
The assumption there is that anti-SNP tactical voting will outweigh anti-Tory voting. I think that's misplaced in the context of 2024, and that Labour and Lib Dems will tend to hold their noses and vote SNP. It isn't cuddly Ruth Davidson now, and I think there is a big majority for change of Government in Scotland which will screw the Tories there (appreciate Davidson left before 2019 election but not long before and I struggle to see them as adequately placed to draw tactical support).
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
Yeh. Just feels like all the anchors are slipping under unprecedented high seas.
So much for the End of History.
Read Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations. This has been coming a long time
Several parts of that are badly out of date, however. Several nations he put in his "Orthodox Russian bloc" are closer to the West than ever.
A lot of his South American analysis is similarly dated, and tending toward Cold-War-inclined nonsense.
I rewatched the clip, and you can see Owen Jones getting riled up as Margaret Hodge was speaking, and then you get his opening monologue, I've got an Israeli mate, pause, but.....
I saw the two of them being introduced and my heart sank because it was obvious what was about to happen.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
Blockades are a legal act in times of war, it is not a war crime.
Israel aren't the only ones blockading Gaza anyway, Egypt are too. Egypt could life the blockade and provide safe harbour if they chose.
I realise that this could be a tweet from any day of the week, but he is particularly odious on this occasion.
What is the attention seeking knobhead saying? He is doing a Jezza tribute act on Israel / Palestine conflict?
Yep, opened with 'I have an Israeli friend', then straight to the Novara Media handbook. Shouting down a visibly distressed Margaret Hodge, Sophy Ridge tried to intervene and tell him to button it, but he just carried on bellowing at both women.
Rancid little misogynist.
The Novara Media crew have not covered themselves with glory over this.
I rewatched the clip, and you can see Owen Jones getting riled up as Margaret Hodge was speaking, and then you get his opening monologue, I've got an Israeli mate, pause, but.....
I saw the two of them being introduced and my heart sank because it was obvious what was about to happen.
A cynical current affairs editor might have counted on it.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
Strike at everyone who is shooting, until the shooting stops? Until Israeli soldiers can safely walk from house to house in Gaza without anyone firing, because everyone who would is dead or has given up.
Keep on pressing the fight, until the fighting is won.
That's how you win wars. Nothing new or novel or criminal or inhumane there.
And of course allow safe harbour for anyone who wants to flee the conflict.
Who is providing the safe harbour for the two million refugees? You?
No.
I would suggest other Arab states, since these are Arabs fleeing the conflict.
Failing that, people in neighbouring countries, like normal in a conflict.
But either way, the conflict can and should be won.
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
Yeh. Just feels like all the anchors are slipping under unprecedented high seas.
So much for the End of History.
Read Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations. This has been coming a long time
Several parts of that are badly out of date, however. Several nations he put in the "Orthodox Russian bloc" are closer to the West than ever.
A lot of his South American analysis is also dated, and tending to be Cold-War -inclined nonsense.
Yes - I revisited that book recently just see how the prophesying was turning out (I remember being fairly persuaded by it at the time - I think I was 19 or 20). A lot of it was bollocks and reading now it is laughably simplistic.
As a dad of two Jewish kids today has been incredibly upsetting.
I’m a leftist. I believe in redistribution of wealth. I believe in equity of opportunity. I believe in peace and kindness. Seeing these f*cking scumbags like Jones taking up the Hamas cause makes me livid. Killing kids in front of their parents. Massacres. And this weird uncritical devotion to the anti-Israel cause - the mask has totally slipped now. These people hate Jews and want them to die.
It really shouldn't be a party political issue. It is because the likes of Corbyn don't understand the ramifications of standing shoulder to shoulder with Hamas and Hezbollah with no thought for how that emboldens terminally wicked terrorists, that it is.
Owen Jones is just, to channel Angela Rayner, "scum". I haven't seen the interview, but how dare he challenge Margaret Hodge over what has unfolded in the last four days. The Guardian should sack him.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
Strike at everyone who is shooting, until the shooting stops? Until Israeli soldiers can safely walk from house to house in Gaza without anyone firing, because everyone who would is dead or has given up.
Keep on pressing the fight, until the fighting is won.
That's how you win wars. Nothing new or novel or criminal or inhumane there.
And of course allow safe harbour for anyone who wants to flee the conflict.
Who is providing the safe harbour for the two million refugees? You?
No.
I would suggest other Arab states, since these are Arabs fleeing the conflict.
Failing that, people in neighbouring countries, like normal in a conflict.
But either way, the conflict can and should be won.
You should send Sisi an email.
Its up to him what he wants to do, not me.
He's not a party to the conflict. If he would rather see innocent Gazans die than be allowed to flee a conflict, then that's a tragedy.
But just because Sisi might be inhumane is no reason why Israel shouldn't fight the conflict to win. Its up to non-combatants to offer refuge in a conflict, not the combatants.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
Are you allowed to criticize the past actions of many Israeli governments without being called anti Semitic.
I’ve made no secret of what I think of Netanyahu who I think is corrupt and who would sell his own grandmother to remain in office . He fosters hate and division.
He has made deals with extremists to remain in power and wants to destroy democracy in Israel .
He is part of the problem not the solution.
It’s strange when people criticize other governments they don’t get accused of hating the people they represent.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Damn right.
That's what Bart's strategywar boils down to.
Kill them, before they kill us. Once their fighters are all dead or surrender unconditionally, the war can end.
War has casualties, its tragic, its also the right thing to do when under attack.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
What was symmetric about what happened at the weekend?
Don't blame Israel for this. Blame Hamas and their supporters. Including those who ignore the hideous acts they have performed in the past whilst wittering on endlessly about the evils of Israel. Both sides have done terrible things in the past; but at least Israel, unlike Hamas, tries for peace (hence the deals with neighbouring countries).
But listening to some on here, it's all Israel's fault.
Are you allowed to criticize the past actions of many Israeli governments without being called anti Semitic.
I’ve made no secret of what I think of Netanyahu who I think is corrupt and who would sell his own grandmother to remain in office . He fosters hate and division.
He has made deals with extremists to remain in power and wants to destroy democracy in Israel .
He is part of the problem not the solution.
It’s strange when people criticize other governments they don’t get accused of hating the people they represent.
It's not difficult.
Criticising Netanyahu as a dishonest, corrupt, racist piece of shit is not anti-semitic.
Are you allowed to criticize the past actions of many Israeli governments without being called anti Semitic.
I’ve made no secret of what I think of Netanyahu who I think is corrupt and who would sell his own grandmother to remain in office . He fosters hate and division.
He has made deals with extremists to remain in power and wants to destroy democracy in Israel .
He is part of the problem not the solution.
It’s strange when people criticize other governments they don’t get accused of hating the people they represent.
As another person married into a Jewish family, I would actually tend to agree with this.
The occasional weaponisation of anti-semitism by some of the religiously fascistic elements supporting Netanyahu is unfortunately a fact, just as the weaponisation of anti-zionism in some quarters to mask genuine anti-semitism, is unfortunately also a fact.
Gaza is not a democracy or anything close but the Palestinian people have tolerated this bunch of psychopaths and murderers running their territory. Which kind of makes them responsible to me. If you don’t want to be responsible kick Hamas out and appoint someone willing to negotiate sensibly with Israel instead.
These people are not innocent. They have tolerated and supported these loons.
Whilst I agree with that, and a clear majority may do so, it's worth bearing in mind that a decent number in Gaza may also have been intimidated into supporting them or keeping their mouths shut.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Are you allowed to criticize the past actions of many Israeli governments without being called anti Semitic.
I’ve made no secret of what I think of Netanyahu who I think is corrupt and who would sell his own grandmother to remain in office . He fosters hate and division.
He has made deals with extremists to remain in power and wants to destroy democracy in Israel .
He is part of the problem not the solution.
It’s strange when people criticize other governments they don’t get accused of hating the people they represent.
It's not difficult.
Criticising Netanyahu as a dishonest, corrupt, racist piece of shit is not anti-semitic.
Demonstrating in favour of Hamas is anti-semitic.
Especially when you chant “Gas the Jews”
Or “Are all the Jews dead yet?”
It’s not hard.
Try this on for size. If after the next Israeli air strike in Gaza, I drive round a Muslim neighbourhood, waving Israeli flags out of the car, shouting stupid shit, am I
1) A racist shit head 2) Protesting as point of view
I’ll get my coat. It has a loaf of Kingsmill in the pocket, ready for the 5th of January….
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
"As the Labour leadership rolls out the red carpet for climate vandals, arms firms and private healthcare, thousands of us are organising for the bold change this country needs.
We will keep campaigning for social justice and peace.
Are you allowed to criticize the past actions of many Israeli governments without being called anti Semitic.
I’ve made no secret of what I think of Netanyahu who I think is corrupt and who would sell his own grandmother to remain in office . He fosters hate and division.
He has made deals with extremists to remain in power and wants to destroy democracy in Israel .
He is part of the problem not the solution.
It’s strange when people criticize other governments they don’t get accused of hating the people they represent.
It's not difficult.
Criticising Netanyahu as a dishonest, corrupt, racist piece of shit is not anti-semitic.
Are you allowed to criticize the past actions of many Israeli governments without being called anti Semitic.
I’ve made no secret of what I think of Netanyahu who I think is corrupt and who would sell his own grandmother to remain in office . He fosters hate and division.
He has made deals with extremists to remain in power and wants to destroy democracy in Israel .
He is part of the problem not the solution.
It’s strange when people criticize other governments they don’t get accused of hating the people they represent.
It's not difficult.
Criticising Netanyahu as a dishonest, corrupt, racist piece of shit is not anti-semitic.
Demonstrating in favour of Hamas is anti-semitic.
The two statements can be mutually exclusive. The one statement erroneously automatically having to lead to the other was how Corbyn blew his simple mind. Owen Jones similarly.
As a matter of strategy, I think Israel should announce soon that "civilians" in Gaza would be allowed to leave under a flag of truce, to be interned until the war ends.
Sometimes the humane thing to do is also the right thing to do, militarily.
(I would not expect Hamas to accept that offer, preferring to keep as many human shields in Gaza, as possible. Unfortunately.)
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Gaza is not a democracy or anything close but the Palestinian people have tolerated this bunch of psychopaths and murderers running their territory. Which kind of makes them responsible to me. If you don’t want to be responsible kick Hamas out and appoint someone willing to negotiate sensibly with Israel instead.
These people are not innocent. They have tolerated and supported these loons.
Whilst I agree with that, and a clear majority may do so, it's worth bearing in mind that a decent number in Gaza may also have been intimidated into supporting them or keeping their mouths shut.
Aye, Hamas are murderous psychos with a record of killing their own so why don't the Palestinian people kick them out is one of these questions that answers itself.
How many years since there was an election in Gaza?
Gaza is not a democracy or anything close but the Palestinian people have tolerated this bunch of psychopaths and murderers running their territory. Which kind of makes them responsible to me. If you don’t want to be responsible kick Hamas out and appoint someone willing to negotiate sensibly with Israel instead.
These people are not innocent. They have tolerated and supported these loons.
Fatah, from whom the Palestinian President comes, dislike Hamas almost as much as Israel do
Yes, the issue is Gaza far, far more than the West Bank.
Destroy Hamas, and peace with the West Bank might be more achievable.
No it won't because Netanyahu has already made it clear he will never accept the Palestinians having any degree of autonomy or fredom in the West Bank. Whatever happens with Gaza, once it is over he will continue to persecute the Palestinians in the West Bank, stealing their land for new settlements and making life impossible for them.
As far as Netenyahu is concerned this doesn't end until every Palestinian is dead or driven off what he considers to be Israeli land. That includes all of Gaza and all of the West Bank.
Are you allowed to criticize the past actions of many Israeli governments without being called anti Semitic.
I’ve made no secret of what I think of Netanyahu who I think is corrupt and who would sell his own grandmother to remain in office . He fosters hate and division.
He has made deals with extremists to remain in power and wants to destroy democracy in Israel .
He is part of the problem not the solution.
It’s strange when people criticize other governments they don’t get accused of hating the people they represent.
Yes you can and people do it all the time.
That doesn't mean people have never been called anti-semitic simply for criticising past actions of Israeli governments alone, it has happened.
But plenty of other people parrot anti-semitic tropes and act as if it is just so difficult to criticise the Israeli state without being called anti-semitic, or accidentally cosying up to people who are undisguised anti-semites, and I just don't think it is that difficult.
As Malmesbury notes, much criticism can very quickly devolve into very obvious anti-semitism, murderously so, and so it shouldn't be hard to be a step above that.
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
Yeh. Just feels like all the anchors are slipping under unprecedented high seas.
So much for the End of History.
Read Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations. This has been coming a long time
Several parts of that are badly out of date, however. Several nations he put in his "Orthodox Russian bloc" are closer to the West than ever.
A lot of his South American analysis is similarly dated, and tending toward Cold-War-inclined nonsense.
It’s been 20 years since ii read it, to be fair, and I was never on the Latin American desk
In the US, the comparable saying was: "Some of my best friends are . . . ", followed by something racist or anti-Semitic. It was used so often, it became a joke, for many of us.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
Ffs Bart. Who would be first out of the door? The feckin' terrorists.
Yes you can eliminate Hamas, but you have to lock them in and a) eliminate everyone else in Gaza, which leads to b) a new set of p1ssed off pro- Palestinian terrorists.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Are you allowed to criticize the past actions of many Israeli governments without being called anti Semitic.
I’ve made no secret of what I think of Netanyahu who I think is corrupt and who would sell his own grandmother to remain in office . He fosters hate and division.
He has made deals with extremists to remain in power and wants to destroy democracy in Israel .
He is part of the problem not the solution.
It’s strange when people criticize other governments they don’t get accused of hating the people they represent.
All the more so when Netanyahu received only minority support in the elections. He certainly didn't represent a plurality of Israeli opinion at the last election - although of course I suspect that will have changed temporarily as a result of the last few days.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
That's right up there with your Covid liberty fevered 'Everyone has to do die sometime' as you consigned thousands of oldies to drown in their own phlegm.
Gaza is not a democracy or anything close but the Palestinian people have tolerated this bunch of psychopaths and murderers running their territory. Which kind of makes them responsible to me. If you don’t want to be responsible kick Hamas out and appoint someone willing to negotiate sensibly with Israel instead.
These people are not innocent. They have tolerated and supported these loons.
Fatah, from whom the Palestinian President comes, dislike Hamas almost as much as Israel do
Yes, the issue is Gaza far, far more than the West Bank.
Destroy Hamas, and peace with the West Bank might be more achievable.
No it won't because Netanyahu has already made it clear he will never accept the Palestinians having any degree of autonomy or fredom in the West Bank. Whatever happens with Gaza, once it is over he will continue to persecute the Palestinians in the West Bank, stealing their land for new settlements and making life impossible for them.
As far as Netenyahu is concerned this doesn't end until every Palestinian is dead or driven off what he considers to be Israeli land. That includes all of Gaza and all of the West Bank.
Netenyahu's position is entirely logical and reasonable when its enemies are seeking Israel's destruction. There's no negotiating with those who want to destroy you.
If Hamas are defeated, Bibi may see a bounce at first, but eventually Israel is more likely to eventually elect someone who is willing to negotiate with Fatah.
Israel is not a dictatorship. If Hamas are defeated, then Netanyahu won't be in power forever. But while Hamas exist, their defeat has to come first.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
BTW credit where it is due. C4 News tonight did well in compiling reports from Gaza, and Matt Frei's interview with a charming Hamas bloke in Lebanon - this blew the doors of the sorts of illusions people might have. Lots of other good stuff too.
It does occur to me that the degree of civilised discourse and wanting to see the best in UK MSM has for years tended to underplay, for example, the fact that Hamas's policy actually is the entire destruction of Israel. Saturday was an instance of this policy in action.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
We might be heading into a situation where 2 million people in Gaza are either killed or forced to flee their homes, or seven million Jews are.
Which is a ****** hideous thought.
I simply cannot see how the two can coexist next to each other now.
Then again, 100,000 Armenians fled Nagorno-Karabakh the other week, and sadly few people batted an eyelid at that.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
You are all over the place tonight. Your basic premise is Hamas must be eliminated is sound, but your working out is rubbish.
Lock everyone into Gaza , stop food water and fuel for heating until everyone is dead. Hamas are defeated. But then you are having a personal moral panic about dead innocent Gazan women and children, so you are making absurd suggestions like "allow safe havens for the innocent", whereby all the terrorists escape.
If you want to exterminate Hamas you can achieve that, but you don't seem to like the downside of your plan.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
Ffs Bart. Who would be first out of the door? The feckin' terrorists.
Yes you can eliminate Hamas, but you have to lock them in and a) eliminate everyone else in Gaza, which leads to b) a new set of p1ssed off pro- Palestinian terrorists.
If they all go out the door then they're gone, just slam the door shut behind them.
He said he has had no money despite work already starting such as digging newt ponds, spraying grass, planting trees with root balls still in plastic bags and putting 11ft high fencing around the trees to protect them from the deer.
'I've been on the farm for 50 years and I have yet to see a deer,' he quipped.
Mr Kettle continued: 'I was dealing with a load of idiots because there was no common sense about what they were doing. They were digging newt ponds and when the two-year delay came they backfilled them all.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
We might be heading into a situation where 2 million people in Gaza are either killed or forced to flee their homes, or seven million Jews are.
Which is a ****** hideous thought.
I simply cannot see how the two can coexist next to each other now.
Then again, 100,000 Armenians fled Nagorno-Karabakh the other week, and sadly few people batted an eyelid at that.
Even though it made the news most people had never heard of Nagorno-Karabakh before. They will have heard of Gaza. It shouldn't matter but it does - no doubt there's atrocities going on in the world I have zero clue about.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
You are all over the place tonight. Your basic premise is Hamas must be eliminated is sound, but your working out is rubbish.
Lock everyone into Gaza , stop food water and fuel for heating until everyone is dead. Hamas are defeated. But then you are having a personal moral panic about dead innocent Gazan women and children, so you are making absurd suggestions like "allow safe havens for the innocent", whereby all the terrorists escape.
If you want to exterminate Hamas you can achieve that, but you don't seem to like the downside of your plan.
I didn't say everyone in Hamas has to die, I said they need to be destroyed to the point they all either die or surrender.
Fleeing is surrender. If everyone in Hamas vacates Gaza then the Hamas threat in Gaza has gone with them. What's your problem with that?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
Ffs Bart. Who would be first out of the door? The feckin' terrorists.
Yes you can eliminate Hamas, but you have to lock them in and a) eliminate everyone else in Gaza, which leads to b) a new set of p1ssed off pro- Palestinian terrorists.
If they all go out the door then they're gone, just slam the door shut behind them.
But then they are even angrier than they were, and launch even madder and badder attacks, just from a different starting point. You are not thinking this through. You either have to be ruthless or think of a plan B.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
These days you can launch very precise air strikes into densely populated areas and massively minimise (but not avoid) civilian deaths. From the numbers we are seeing for Palestinian deaths, and noting how pervasive Hamas is, it looks to me like Israel is going just that. A fairly proportionate response.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
Ffs Bart. Who would be first out of the door? The feckin' terrorists.
Yes you can eliminate Hamas, but you have to lock them in and a) eliminate everyone else in Gaza, which leads to b) a new set of p1ssed off pro- Palestinian terrorists.
If they all go out the door then they're gone, just slam the door shut behind them.
But then they are even angrier than they were, and launch even madder and badder attacks, just from a different starting point. You are not thinking this through. You either have to be ruthless or think of a plan B.
Where do they launch new attacks from?
Not Gaza, they're not there anymore.
From Egypt? To what end? And at that point, Egypt are made a combatant and need to stop Hamas too.
Really, I couldn't give less of a shit if they're any madder than they already are, its like saying defeating the Nazis was a bad idea because then the Germans would become worse.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
On topic, and to provide respite from the horrors in the Middle East, even if Starmer doesn't massively 'turn around' his personal ratings pre-election but wins, I wouldn't expect him or his government to become unpopular very quickly. Why? Firstly, success makes you popular. When he lost the election in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn's personal ratings shot up purely by dint of not doing so by nearly as much as expected. Just those who thought Mr Corbyn was useless but were broadly Labour supporters viewed him much more favourably after not doing what he did in 2019 and screwing it all up, if Starmer gets a decent win, lots who want Labour in but think he's a bit meh and worry, will regard him as the brilliant chap who broke Labour's hoodoo. You can even look at 2005 for a similar effect - when Blair, deeply unpopular due to Iraq, briefly became more so again purely because he won. If he does win, there'll be some positive write-ups from all but the most grudging hacks. Secondly, he'll have an ability to set the agenda and some low hanging fruit to supplement the 'give him a chance' honeymoon phase - and there'll be lots of "Oh God the Tories have left such a mess" to blame things on. That will all wane of course as has to make the unpopular decisions and makes the mistakes all Prime Ministers do, but Tories hoping he falls flat on his face shortly after entering No. 10 may be indulging in wishful thinking. He'd only have to do a middling job and fix a few things to be very difficult to beat as an incumbent.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
This is indeed a great difficulty. Like many people I would hope for a proportionate response, whatever the f*ck that means, and of course minimisation of casualties etc, but it is nonetheless true that in practice a lot of people and nations would take any actual reaction off the table through fear of an overreaction.
Is the answer to be blunt and casual about the terrible cost that any action would entail? How much acceptance crosses over into too much? How much lamenting cost leads, logically, to regarding the cost of defence as too high? We see that from the Russian trolls and like minded souls all the time - people are dying in war, so just give up.
We can each set out our stall on it and wrestle with our consciences even though we're just typing words on a website, and just be glad we don't have to make the decisions I guess.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
Of course they should, but you might not like what that means, particularly when Benjamin Netanyahu is in the driving seat.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
You just said "whatever it takes". 2 million?
Why would it take 2 million?
Did every single German die before the Nazis surrendered?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
These days you can launch very precise air strikes into densely populated areas and massively minimise (but not avoid) civilian deaths. From the numbers we are seeing for Palestinian deaths, and noting how pervasive Hamas is, it looks to me like Israel is going just that. A fairly proportionate response.
Hmmm, you may be correct, but that all depends on your definition of proportionate. That is not necessarily a rebuttal of your point, but an observation.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
You just said "whatever it takes". 2 million?
Why would it take 2 million?
Did every single German die before the Nazis surrendered?
You've being absurd. Yes, whatever it takes.
When do you think Hamas will surrender? 1 million?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcarated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
On topic, and to provide respite from the horrors in the Middle East, even if Starmer doesn't massively 'turn around' his personal ratings pre-election but wins, I wouldn't expect him or his government to become unpopular very quickly. Why? Firstly, success makes you popular. When he lost the election in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn's personal ratings shot up purely by dint of not doing so by nearly as much as expected. Just those who thought Mr Corbyn was useless but were broadly Labour supporters viewed him much more favourably after not doing what he did in 2019 and screwing it all up, if Starmer gets a decent win, lots who want Labour in but think he's a bit meh and worry, will regard him as the brilliant chap who broke Labour's hoodoo. You can even look at 2005 for a similar effect - when Blair, deeply unpopular due to Iraq, briefly became more so again purely because he won. If he does win, there'll be some positive write-ups from all but the most grudging hacks. Secondly, he'll have an ability to set the agenda and some low hanging fruit to supplement the 'give him a chance' honeymoon phase - and there'll be lots of "Oh God the Tories have left such a mess" to blame things on. That will all wane of course as has to make the unpopular decisions and makes the mistakes all Prime Ministers do, but Tories hoping he falls flat on his face shortly after entering No. 10 may be indulging in wishful thinking. He'd only have to do a middling job and fix a few things to be very difficult to beat as an incumbent.
I think you’re probably right. He’ll be helped by the Tories entering a vicious and potentially lethal civil war as well.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
You just said "whatever it takes". 2 million?
Why would it take 2 million?
Did every single German die before the Nazis surrendered?
You've being absurd. Yes, whatever it takes.
When do you think Hamas will surrender? 1 million?
Who knows?
Also doesn't change anything.
War is hell. Hamas chose to start the war, Hamas chose to inflict this hell, their defeat is what matters now.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
These days you can launch very precise air strikes into densely populated areas and massively minimise (but not avoid) civilian deaths. From the numbers we are seeing for Palestinian deaths, and noting how pervasive Hamas is, it looks to me like Israel is going just that. A fairly proportionate response.
Hmmm, you mat be correct, but that all depends on your definition of proportionate. That is not necessarily a rebuttal of your point, but an observation.
Oh I agree. It’s not pleasant, it’s perfectly valid to think that killing, say, ten civilians to destroy an enemy command control centre is unacceptable.
Anyone who says those decisions are easy, or blithely says civil deaths are worth it, has never been involved in those decisions.
Edit - “valid” reads wrong. You don’t need my permission. But you know what I mean.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
You just said "whatever it takes". 2 million?
Why would it take 2 million?
Did every single German die before the Nazis surrendered?
You've being absurd. Yes, whatever it takes.
"Why would it take 2 million? ...Yes, whatever it takes".
So from your post, if it takes 2 million dead to erase Hamas, it takes 2 million.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
You just said "whatever it takes". 2 million?
Why would it take 2 million?
Did every single German die before the Nazis surrendered?
You've being absurd. Yes, whatever it takes.
"Why would it take 2 million? ...Yes, whatever it takes".
So from your post, if it takes 2 million dead to erase Hamas, it takes 2 million.
Yes. 🤷♂️
It took 75 million to defeat the Nazis.
Whatever it takes to provide security for Israel and end the war is what matters here. Any other concern is lower down.
Now if someone wants to offer safe haven, or if Hamas want to unconditionally surrender, then that changes things, doesn't it? But if nobody does, then whose fault is that?
On topic, and to provide respite from the horrors in the Middle East, even if Starmer doesn't massively 'turn around' his personal ratings pre-election but wins, I wouldn't expect him or his government to become unpopular very quickly. Why? Firstly, success makes you popular. When he lost the election in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn's personal ratings shot up purely by dint of not doing so by nearly as much as expected. Just those who thought Mr Corbyn was useless but were broadly Labour supporters viewed him much more favourably after not doing what he did in 2019 and screwing it all up, if Starmer gets a decent win, lots who want Labour in but think he's a bit meh and worry, will regard him as the brilliant chap who broke Labour's hoodoo. You can even look at 2005 for a similar effect - when Blair, deeply unpopular due to Iraq, briefly became more so again purely because he won. If he does win, there'll be some positive write-ups from all but the most grudging hacks. Secondly, he'll have an ability to set the agenda and some low hanging fruit to supplement the 'give him a chance' honeymoon phase - and there'll be lots of "Oh God the Tories have left such a mess" to blame things on. That will all wane of course as has to make the unpopular decisions and makes the mistakes all Prime Ministers do, but Tories hoping he falls flat on his face shortly after entering No. 10 may be indulging in wishful thinking. He'd only have to do a middling job and fix a few things to be very difficult to beat as an incumbent.
I think you’re probably right. He’ll be helped by the Tories entering a vicious and potentially lethal civil war as well.
The massive hostage to fortune Lab are giving is easing strike rules. If the strikes continue then that is an enormous stick to beat them with.
Possible Conservative gains on those numbers in Moray, Angus and the glens and Perth and Kinross-shire. ( names abbreviated a bit).
Indeed. SNP lead over Tories down from 20% to 13% compared to GE2019.
Maybe Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber too? LAB have no chance there
The assumption there is that anti-SNP tactical voting will outweigh anti-Tory voting. I think that's misplaced in the context of 2024, and that Labour and Lib Dems will tend to hold their noses and vote SNP. It isn't cuddly Ruth Davidson now, and I think there is a big majority for change of Government in Scotland which will screw the Tories there (appreciate Davidson left before 2019 election but not long before and I struggle to see them as adequately placed to draw tactical support).
The Conservatives have generally pulled in a lot of transfers in Scottish local by-elections. That suggests that pro-Union voters just don't vote SNP any more.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
Leila Khaled wasn't a young male, so your net needs to be cast wider.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
Am I wearing a tinfoil hat if I suggest that the current Russian attack to get Avdiivka in the east of Ukraine and the attack by Hamas might just be connected?
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
You just said "whatever it takes". 2 million?
Why would it take 2 million?
Did every single German die before the Nazis surrendered?
You've being absurd. Yes, whatever it takes.
"Why would it take 2 million? ...Yes, whatever it takes".
So from your post, if it takes 2 million dead to erase Hamas, it takes 2 million.
Yes. 🤷♂️
It took 75 million to defeat the Nazis.
Whatever it takes to provide security for Israel and end the war is what matters here. Any other concern is lower down.
Now if someone wants to offer safe haven, or if Hamas want to unconditionally surrender, then that changes things, doesn't it? But if nobody does, then whose fault is that?
But you notion of a safe haven is another fail. A safe haven will be a safe haven for innocent men, women and children, and guilty terrorists.
Am I wearing a tinfoil hat if I suggest that the current Russian attack to get Avdiivka in the east of Ukraine and the attack by Hamas might just be connected?
I was surprised how quickly Russia supported Hamas, despite the Iran link, given the toys Israel can offer Ukraine.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
These days you can launch very precise air strikes into densely populated areas and massively minimise (but not avoid) civilian deaths. From the numbers we are seeing for Palestinian deaths, and noting how pervasive Hamas is, it looks to me like Israel is going just that. A fairly proportionate response.
For now, yes. But that is likely to be stuff they have good intelligence on. It will get more difficult.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
You just said "whatever it takes". 2 million?
Why would it take 2 million?
Did every single German die before the Nazis surrendered?
You've being absurd. Yes, whatever it takes.
"Why would it take 2 million? ...Yes, whatever it takes".
So from your post, if it takes 2 million dead to erase Hamas, it takes 2 million.
Yes. 🤷♂️
It took 75 million to defeat the Nazis.
Whatever it takes to provide security for Israel and end the war is what matters here. Any other concern is lower down.
Now if someone wants to offer safe haven, or if Hamas want to unconditionally surrender, then that changes things, doesn't it? But if nobody does, then whose fault is that?
But you notion of a safe haven is another fail. A safe haven will be a safe haven for innocent men, women and children, and guilty terrorists.
So what?
If terrorists want to give up and flee, then let them abandon their arms and flee. That's still Hamas being destroyed if everyone in it has gone from Gaza.
Gaza is not a democracy or anything close but the Palestinian people have tolerated this bunch of psychopaths and murderers running their territory. Which kind of makes them responsible to me. If you don’t want to be responsible kick Hamas out and appoint someone willing to negotiate sensibly with Israel instead.
These people are not innocent. They have tolerated and supported these loons.
By what mechanism? Gaza is not a liberal democracy. Unlike, we must remind ourselves, Israel which is a beacon of light in an otherwise despotic region. Of course, the bitter irony now is that indiscriminate Israeli revenge is likely to solidify support for Hamas as being on "our side" against those killing Gazan civilians.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
These days you can launch very precise air strikes into densely populated areas and massively minimise (but not avoid) civilian deaths. From the numbers we are seeing for Palestinian deaths, and noting how pervasive Hamas is, it looks to me like Israel is going just that. A fairly proportionate response.
For now, yes. But that is likely to be stuff they have good intelligence on. It will get more difficult.
Agree. Sustaining a target list is an issue, and if they end up doing CAP, that’s when the mistakes will happen.
In the US, the comparable saying was: "Some of my best friends are . . . ", followed by something racist or anti-Semitic. It was used so often, it became a joke, for many of us.
It’s a standard trope in what used to be called saloon bar racism in the U.K. - meaning the saloon bar in the pub.
I’d told my wife about the racist blind guy who lives locally. But she didn’t believe it until we came across him in the road just after COVID. All the new street furniture confused him, and he needed some help.
Walking along, he starts up with - “Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends….”
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
Fair enough.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
Fuck off.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
Sorry for calling you out for it. I appreciate it's unpleasant being exposed like that.
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
Whatever it takes is worth it.
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
You just said "whatever it takes". 2 million?
Why would it take 2 million?
Did every single German die before the Nazis surrendered?
You've being absurd. Yes, whatever it takes.
"Why would it take 2 million? ...Yes, whatever it takes".
So from your post, if it takes 2 million dead to erase Hamas, it takes 2 million.
Yes. 🤷♂️
It took 75 million to defeat the Nazis.
Whatever it takes to provide security for Israel and end the war is what matters here. Any other concern is lower down.
Now if someone wants to offer safe haven, or if Hamas want to unconditionally surrender, then that changes things, doesn't it? But if nobody does, then whose fault is that?
But you notion of a safe haven is another fail. A safe haven will be a safe haven for innocent men, women and children, and guilty terrorists.
So what?
If terrorists want to give up and flee, then let them abandon their arms and flee. That's still Hamas being destroyed if everyone in it has gone from Gaza.
But the terrorists go somewhere else convenient, maybe Lebanon. And they still conduct their horrible s*** from there.
Am I wearing a tinfoil hat if I suggest that the current Russian attack to get Avdiivka in the east of Ukraine and the attack by Hamas might just be connected?
I was surprised how quickly Russia supported Hamas, despite the Iran link, given the toys Israel can offer Ukraine.
I suspect Israel doesn't have much spare at present.
A ground invasion of an urban area riddled with tunnels, boobytraps where fighters blend into a civilian population and where a lot of military equipment has been smuggled is likely to lead to considerable consumption of men and war material.
Am I wearing a tinfoil hat if I suggest that the current Russian attack to get Avdiivka in the east of Ukraine and the attack by Hamas might just be connected?
I was surprised how quickly Russia supported Hamas, despite the Iran link, given the toys Israel can offer Ukraine.
I suspect Israel doesn't have much spare at present.
A ground invasion of an urban area riddled with tunnels, boobytraps where fighters blend into a civilian population and where a lot of military equipment has been smuggled is likely to lead to considerable consumption of men and war material.
Whilst that is true, operations in Gaza will last months at most until (worst case) it’s a counter insurgency op. Ukraine will want toys next spring.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just to be clear here before the Israelis do go in on the ground. I know there is this perception of ultra precision weapons and somehow that, depending on your political standpoint, a) they minimise civilian casualties and are quite awesome or b) if they are so precise lots of civilians shouldnt get killed and when they do so, it must mean its deliberate targeting.
A key factor for success in modern large scale warfare, including in urban areas, is about focussed volume. Whether thats dropping munitions with pinpoint accuracy or having a small arms shoot out, weight of fire still matters just as much as precision. A 1000lb bomb delivered accurately is still a 1000lb bomb. Whilst the ratio may be better due to precision, the outcome is the same, lots of civilians will get killed because weight still matters.
Israel is going to load up to both destroy its enemy and minimise its own casualties. Its how it is and no other Western doctrine country would do any different.
On one other thing. The other day I posted that the, despite the focus on the intelligence failings, the bigger one was that the initial response seemed lacking, a bit slow and uncoordinated given the sheer armed resources available in the area (even if a lot of people were off duty for the holiday). It still looks that way but its also becoming clear that, where they were given the opportunity after the first minutes of surprise, the Israelis did appear to fight 90%+ of the time whether initially outgunned or not.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
These days you can launch very precise air strikes into densely populated areas and massively minimise (but not avoid) civilian deaths. From the numbers we are seeing for Palestinian deaths, and noting how pervasive Hamas is, it looks to me like Israel is going just that. A fairly proportionate response.
Hmmm, you mat be correct, but that all depends on your definition of proportionate. That is not necessarily a rebuttal of your point, but an observation.
Oh I agree. It’s not pleasant, it’s perfectly valid to think that killing, say, ten civilians to destroy an enemy command control centre is unacceptable.
Anyone who says those decisions are easy, or blithely says civil deaths are worth it, has never been involved in those decisions.
Edit - “valid” reads wrong. You don’t need my permission. But you know what I mean.
Indeed, and if you are one of those ten civilians it is bad luck, but if Barty's strategy reaches it's goal, the number of dead human shields is up to 2.3m, it's not just bad luck, it's an inevitability.
So is up to 2.3m dead a proportionate response to 3,000 butchered Israelis? I don't know, but it's a big, big number.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
These days you can launch very precise air strikes into densely populated areas and massively minimise (but not avoid) civilian deaths. From the numbers we are seeing for Palestinian deaths, and noting how pervasive Hamas is, it looks to me like Israel is going just that. A fairly proportionate response.
Hmmm, you mat be correct, but that all depends on your definition of proportionate. That is not necessarily a rebuttal of your point, but an observation.
Oh I agree. It’s not pleasant, it’s perfectly valid to think that killing, say, ten civilians to destroy an enemy command control centre is unacceptable.
Anyone who says those decisions are easy, or blithely says civil deaths are worth it, has never been involved in those decisions.
Edit - “valid” reads wrong. You don’t need my permission. But you know what I mean.
Indeed, and if you are one of those ten civilians it is bad luck, but if Barty's strategy reaches it's goal, the number of dead human shields is up to 2.3m, it's not just bad luck, it's an inevitability.
So is up to 2.3m dead a proportionate response to 3,000 butchered Israelis? I don't know, but it's a big, big number.
Christ, no, is your answer. He is being disgusting. Or possibly he’s a child.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
Conservatives @Conservatives · 6h Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
People love to "both sides" this conflict, or even worse take the wrong side.
Only one side in this conflict is decapitating babies in cold blood.
If you're not against that, you're evil.
Are you evil If you’re not against bombs and missiles being used deliberately on civilians?
Good bet that if you’re making sweeping generalisations at no personal cost on the internet, there’s a decent chance you’re a twat.
Absolutely, Hamas have deliberately used bombs and missiles on civilians.
Israel has not.
There's a difference between civilians being the target, and civilians being collateral damage.
You’re dead either way . There is no good outcome because every decision ends up with a lot of dead people.
You can’t finish off Hamas because they have a constant stream of new recruits . A bloodbath in Gaza is exactly what they want and the whole cycle just continues. It’s truly depressing .
You can finish Hamas off, just as the Tamil Tigers were finished off, and just as other terrorist organisations over time have been finished off. You just need to be prepared to keep killing them until they're either all dead, or they surrender unconditionally.
Which if you're in a state of war, is entirely reasonable behaviour.
How many civilian casualties are acceptable to do this ? Given civilians in Gaza can’t leave how many casualties are too many ?
How many are acceptable to you?
Its a war. There are casualties in war.
I want the war over, but I want the war won. The sooner Hamas et all are destroyed, the sooner others can be free of them.
Of course people who want to flee the war, should be offered safe harbour to do so, but make no mistake that this was a war of Hamas's choosing and Israel should ensure they win it and it leads to either the unconditional destruction of Hamas, or the unconditional and permanent surrender of it.
The border to Egypt is closed, 2 million Palestinians are locked in. If you starve them all to death via a siege you erase Hamas. A potential 2 million dead is some war collateral.
It seems that to be on side you have to want Hamas destroyed regardless of how many civilians die in Gaza . Do these people seriously think that a huge loss of civilians there won’t act as a recruiting sergeant for more terrorism . And what happens in the West Bank .
Hamas are to blame for each and every Gazan death in this conflict.
I want as few civilians as possible to die, and a humanitarian way out for civilians as there are in other conflicts.
But Hamas need to be destroyed, yes.
When at war, then winning the war is the priority.
And Israel has no obligation to provide air or comfort to the enemy.
A scenario where two million peaceful Palestinians cross to border to Egypt, leaving behind card-carrying members of Hamas to fight it out, is laughable.
You keep saying this is what you "want" to squirrel out of fact your solution will see tens of thousands of children killed.
At best, you turbocharge Hamas recruitment and lose thousands of IDF personnel in the assault. At worst, civilians start starving to death and you lose the moral high ground, and then it becomes an existential crisis for Israel as other countries get involved.
That's why the US needs to come up with a second option for retaliation, rather than a ground invasion.
Its not possible to have a bloodless war.
If Israel starts deliberately targetting civilians then that would be abhorrent. They don't do that though.
If they get caught in the crossfire, then that's tragic but part of warfare. How many innocent people did we kill in Iraq, or Afghanistan when we went to war?
Hamas started this war, Israel didn't. Israel need to win it.
What does winning look like? All two million "evicted" from Gaza? Israeli martial law? All fighting age males killed?
Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms, so you'll need to set something out other than "eliminate Hamas".
"Eliminate the baddies'. I've cracked it!
Haha, that's what Bart's strategy boils down to.
Bart's strategy is faultless if 2.3 million dead civilians is acceptable collateral damage. Maybe it is, but that seems like an enormous number to me.
Considering my strategy is to allow those fleeing conflict safe refuge out of the conflict zone, I don't want to or desire to see 2 million dead. Nothing like it in fact.
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
So no invasion or military action in Gaza unless a safe haven can be found?
Come on. Be honest.
Hell no! Name one war ever where the defender hasn't been allowed to defend themselves, until safe haven has been found for their attacker?
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
The way you talk it's like you don't consider the 2.3m Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Strip to be fully fledged human beings.
They shouldn't be incarcerated. If Egypt chooses to keep them incarcerated, that's Egypt's responsibility.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Rather confirming my impression. You couldn't be so blithe about large numbers of ordinary Palestinian men women and children being killed if you thought of them as people of equal worth to (say) yourself. Clearly you don't.
No Shit Sherlock, of course they're not. They're the enemies populace.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
Just stop. That’s disgusting.
Why?
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
No.
No civilian is ever a legitimate military target. Sometimes they die unavoidably and that’s always painful.
Comments
A lot of his South American analysis is similarly dated, and tending toward Cold-War-inclined nonsense.
Israel aren't the only ones blockading Gaza anyway, Egypt are too. Egypt could life the blockade and provide safe harbour if they chose.
Owen Jones is just, to channel Angela Rayner, "scum". I haven't seen the interview, but how dare he challenge Margaret Hodge over what has unfolded in the last four days. The Guardian should sack him.
He's not a party to the conflict. If he would rather see innocent Gazans die than be allowed to flee a conflict, then that's a tragedy.
But just because Sisi might be inhumane is no reason why Israel shouldn't fight the conflict to win. Its up to non-combatants to offer refuge in a conflict, not the combatants.
I’ve made no secret of what I think of Netanyahu who I think is corrupt and who would sell his own grandmother to remain in office . He fosters hate and division.
He has made deals with extremists to remain in power and wants to destroy democracy in Israel .
He is part of the problem not the solution.
It’s strange when people criticize other governments they don’t get accused of hating the people they represent.
That's what Bart's strategy war boils down to.
Kill them, before they kill us. Once their fighters are all dead or surrender unconditionally, the war can end.
War has casualties, its tragic, its also the right thing to do when under attack.
Don't blame Israel for this. Blame Hamas and their supporters. Including those who ignore the hideous acts they have performed in the past whilst wittering on endlessly about the evils of Israel. Both sides have done terrible things in the past; but at least Israel, unlike Hamas, tries for peace (hence the deals with neighbouring countries).
But listening to some on here, it's all Israel's fault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Criticising Netanyahu as a dishonest, corrupt, racist piece of shit is not anti-semitic.
Demonstrating in favour of Hamas is anti-semitic.
The occasional weaponisation of anti-semitism by some of the religiously fascistic elements supporting Netanyahu is unfortunately a fact, just as the weaponisation of anti-zionism in some quarters to mask genuine anti-semitism, is unfortunately also a fact.
Or “Are all the Jews dead yet?”
It’s not hard.
Try this on for size. If after the next Israeli air strike in Gaza, I drive round a Muslim neighbourhood, waving Israeli flags out of the car, shouting stupid shit, am I
1) A racist shit head
2) Protesting as point of view
I’ll get my coat. It has a loaf of Kingsmill in the pocket, ready for the 5th of January….
If tens or hundreds of thousands die, that would be a total tragedy of Hamas's making, but such is war.
We should not seek war, but if war comes to us or our allies we should ensure we or they win it.
I’m starting to become rather concerned about the trajectory of this.
A man removed the Israeli flag flying over Sheffield town hall in an act of solidarity.
https://x.com/habibi_uk/status/1711817378424578460?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
"As the Labour leadership rolls out the red carpet for climate vandals, arms firms and private healthcare, thousands of us are organising for the bold change this country needs.
We will keep campaigning for social justice and peace.
We are the movement for the many, not the few."
Kite-flying for a new party?
Sometimes the humane thing to do is also the right thing to do, militarily.
(I would not expect Hamas to accept that offer, preferring to keep as many human shields in Gaza, as possible. Unfortunately.)
Come on. Be honest.
How many years since there was an election in Gaza?
As far as Netenyahu is concerned this doesn't end until every Palestinian is dead or driven off what he considers to be Israeli land. That includes all of Gaza and all of the West Bank.
That doesn't mean people have never been called anti-semitic simply for criticising past actions of Israeli governments alone, it has happened.
But plenty of other people parrot anti-semitic tropes and act as if it is just so difficult to criticise the Israeli state without being called anti-semitic, or accidentally cosying up to people who are undisguised anti-semites, and I just don't think it is that difficult.
As Malmesbury notes, much criticism can very quickly devolve into very obvious anti-semitism, murderously so, and so it shouldn't be hard to be a step above that.
Yes you can eliminate Hamas, but you have to lock them in and a) eliminate everyone else in Gaza, which leads to b) a new set of p1ssed off pro- Palestinian terrorists.
Its not up to Israel to find safe haven, its up to third parties to offer safe haven.
Its up to Israel to win the bloody war.
What part of this is war do you not understand? Israel needs to fight to win the war, to destroy their enemy. If anyone else wants to offer safe haven, that's their responsibility, and if nobody does any millions die, then the whole world that chose not to offer safe haven shares as much responsibility for that as Israel does - but really Hamas are responsible.
Millions have died in wars before.
You'll always be the person on PB who shrugged at 2 million dead.
If Hamas are defeated, Bibi may see a bounce at first, but eventually Israel is more likely to eventually elect someone who is willing to negotiate with Fatah.
Israel is not a dictatorship. If Hamas are defeated, then Netanyahu won't be in power forever. But while Hamas exist, their defeat has to come first.
75 million died in World War Two. Should we have surrendered to the Nazis to avoid casualties?
Hamas are a threat every bit as evil as the Nazis. Literally, not figuratively, not exaggerating, they are literally committing the most unspeakable vile atrocities and would exterminate all the Jews if the could.
If the rest of the world thinks the Gazans are so vile that not a single place will offer them safe haven, then that would be quite something, I find that improbable myself, but if that happens you should ask yourself why.
But defeating people like the Nazis, or Hamas, or Russia, whatever the cost, when you are at war. Yes, its the right thing to do.
It does occur to me that the degree of civilised discourse and wanting to see the best in UK MSM has for years tended to underplay, for example, the fact that Hamas's policy actually is the entire destruction of Israel. Saturday was an instance of this policy in action.
Which is a ****** hideous thought.
I simply cannot see how the two can coexist next to each other now.
Then again, 100,000 Armenians fled Nagorno-Karabakh the other week, and sadly few people batted an eyelid at that.
Lock everyone into Gaza , stop food water and fuel for heating until everyone is dead. Hamas are defeated. But then you are having a personal moral panic about dead innocent Gazan women and children, so you are making absurd suggestions like "allow safe havens for the innocent", whereby all the terrorists escape.
If you want to exterminate Hamas you can achieve that, but you don't seem to like the downside of your plan.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/farmer-who-lost-40-acres-of-his-land-to-make-way-for-now-cancelled-hs2-route-says-he-still-hasn-t-received-any-compensation-after-it-was-acquired-by-compulsory-purchase-order-in-february/ar-AA1hZWXF?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=be800ee0aa4649ae827b786b93bd95e9&ei=8
He said he has had no money despite work already starting such as digging newt ponds, spraying grass, planting trees with root balls still in plastic bags and putting 11ft high fencing around the trees to protect them from the deer.
'I've been on the farm for 50 years and I have yet to see a deer,' he quipped.
Mr Kettle continued: 'I was dealing with a load of idiots because there was no common sense about what they were doing. They were digging newt ponds and when the two-year delay came they backfilled them all.
Enviromental Box ticking - who'd have thunk it.
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
Fleeing is surrender. If everyone in Hamas vacates Gaza then the Hamas threat in Gaza has gone with them. What's your problem with that?
Though it's a bit pathetic that you, once again, deliberately conflate being concerned about 2 million civilians with being at all supportive of what Hamas have done in recent days.
Stick to your guns - 2 million dead is worth it.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1711813757414867204
2 million dead is as absurd as saying 1 billion refugees will come to the UK next year.
Not Gaza, they're not there anymore.
From Egypt? To what end? And at that point, Egypt are made a combatant and need to stop Hamas too.
Really, I couldn't give less of a shit if they're any madder than they already are, its like saying defeating the Nazis was a bad idea because then the Germans would become worse.
Is the answer to be blunt and casual about the terrible cost that any action would entail? How much acceptance crosses over into too much? How much lamenting cost leads, logically, to regarding the cost of defence as too high? We see that from the Russian trolls and like minded souls all the time - people are dying in war, so just give up.
We can each set out our stall on it and wrestle with our consciences even though we're just typing words on a website, and just be glad we don't have to make the decisions I guess.
Did every single German die before the Nazis surrendered?
You've being absurd. Yes, whatever it takes.
Innocent people are collateral victims in wars. However Palestinians die in a war started by Hamas are the fault of Hamas, just as the German civilians who died in WWII were the responsibility of Hamas's predecessor, the Nazis.
Also doesn't change anything.
War is hell. Hamas chose to start the war, Hamas chose to inflict this hell, their defeat is what matters now.
Anyone who says those decisions are easy, or blithely says civil deaths are worth it, has never been involved in those decisions.
Edit - “valid” reads wrong. You don’t need my permission. But you know what I mean.
So from your post, if it takes 2 million dead to erase Hamas, it takes 2 million.
It took 75 million to defeat the Nazis.
Whatever it takes to provide security for Israel and end the war is what matters here. Any other concern is lower down.
Now if someone wants to offer safe haven, or if Hamas want to unconditionally surrender, then that changes things, doesn't it? But if nobody does, then whose fault is that?
I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
But that is likely to be stuff they have good intelligence on. It will get more difficult.
Ramzan Kadyrov has offered the Chechen national Guard up as peacekeepers in Gaza.
If terrorists want to give up and flee, then let them abandon their arms and flee. That's still Hamas being destroyed if everyone in it has gone from Gaza.
I’d told my wife about the racist blind guy who lives locally. But she didn’t believe it until we came across him in the road just after COVID. All the new street furniture confused him, and he needed some help.
Walking along, he starts up with - “Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends….”
The look on my wife’s face was priceless.
A ground invasion of an urban area riddled with tunnels, boobytraps where fighters blend into a civilian population and where a lot of military equipment has been smuggled is likely to lead to considerable consumption of men and war material.
In war, you look after your own side and defeat the enemy.
If the enemies civilians get caught in the crosshairs because of a war the enemy started and because the enemy won't stop fighting, then that's the enemies fault.
Were German civilians the equal to British civilians in WWII? Don't be stupid.
A key factor for success in modern large scale warfare, including in urban areas, is about focussed volume. Whether thats dropping munitions with pinpoint accuracy or having a small arms shoot out, weight of fire still matters just as much as precision. A 1000lb bomb delivered accurately is still a 1000lb bomb. Whilst the ratio may be better due to precision, the outcome is the same, lots of civilians will get killed because weight still matters.
Israel is going to load up to both destroy its enemy and minimise its own casualties. Its how it is and no other Western doctrine country would do any different.
On one other thing. The other day I posted that the, despite the focus on the intelligence failings, the bigger one was that the initial response seemed lacking, a bit slow and uncoordinated given the sheer armed resources available in the area (even if a lot of people were off duty for the holiday). It still looks that way but its also becoming clear that, where they were given the opportunity after the first minutes of surprise, the Israelis did appear to fight 90%+ of the time whether initially outgunned or not.
Okay this is annoyingly quite clever from @labourpress
https://x.com/jamesrbuk/status/1711840646036677097?s=20
So is up to 2.3m dead a proportionate response to 3,000 butchered Israelis? I don't know, but it's a big, big number.
Palestinian civilians shouldn't be targeted, but in a war you have to put your own civilians first.
Conservatives
@Conservatives
·
6h
Keir Starmer's hour-long #Lab23 speech was more of the same old short-term approach that has dominated politics for the last 30 years.
Only @RishiSunak and the Conservatives offer the long-term leadership that the country needs for a brighter future.
No civilian is ever a legitimate military target. Sometimes they die unavoidably and that’s always painful.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7952bfe5274a2acd18bda5/JSP3832004Edition.pdf