Re: Hamas Israel War
 

Not as a category, no. But rather a lot of them were chanting or waving the ‘from the river to the sea’ slogan in London today, whose meaning is pretty clear.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

And with this one sentence JF you lose all credibility. We can talk about history. But Israel has had no interest in Gaza for 18yrs. There have been isolated incidents over the years that I recognise, I can’t list them but acknowledge they’ve happened, but they have not been coordinated attacks to cause as much death and terror as possible.

So in regards to Oct 7th Hamas are 100% solely to blame.

It does, and it’s getting it in spades.

Not from me, I think it’s ill advised and not the approach I would take. But I can understand why.

May not be helpful but it’s true.

Those thousands of people in London are 100% anti-Israel, 100%.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

I think it’s a contentious phrase, however it suits a particular narrative to pretend that it has a clear meaning. It’d be impossible without surveying everyone who actually chanted it to know what they meant by it.

---------- Post added at 23:25 ---------- Previous post was at 23:23 ----------

You’ve moved the goalposts here Pierre.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

Why ?

Well you seem to have stepped in to do that in spades.
Its pretty much the theme of every post of yours in here (and other topics, where btw, it does not belong).
You should offer your PR services to Hamas.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

As I said at some point Israel becomes responsible for its own actions.

I’ve no great desire to do PR for a proscribed terrorist organisation. However I’m more than happy to call out the injustices being carried out by the Israeli state on the people of Gaza. I don’t think it’s fair to imply that is somehow PR for Hamas.

I’ve made references to Israel in one other topic where another poster made accusations of BBC bias for a story they ran that was also carried by large US outlets at that time and an event still disputed by some outlets. I don’t consider that particularly unreasonable.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

Wrong. The tactics of Bomber Command were controversial even at the time. Churchill himself was far from convinced that the area bombing of civilian targets was justified, morally or strategically. If you’re in any doubt as to how widespread public unease became once the fate of Dresden and other cities became known, note that after the war, no monument was erected to Bomber Command. There was no monument until 2012. Arthur Harris got a statue 8 years after he died, and only because a RAF veterans trust set up specifically to defend Harris’ reputation organised it. Is there any other senior British military leader who warranted an organisation specifically geared towards defending him?

When shown the results of the Dresden firestorm raids Churchill is said to have asked, “Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?”

If there was room in Churchill’s reflections for questions like that even at a time of national existential struggle, then we are entitled to ask Israel’s leaders to behave similarly. National defence is justified. Offensive operations in pursuit of national defence are justified. But it is quite possible to go too far even in an existential struggle. Is anyone at the top of the Israeli government asking those questions? Because it doesn’t look like it right now.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

"Bleating about civilians" isn't a bias.

I'd say there's a major difference between a terror group numbering the small tens of thousands people in a controlled territory and Nazi Germany - which at it's peak covered about an area of Europe comprising 280 million people and all the industrial capabilities that come with.

Hamas are tiny opportunists by comparison.

The elections are a complete red herring and no justification for the killing of civilians - which it seems somewhat to be implied.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

Parallels between WWII are inevitable. The allies did not need to obliterate Dresden, or drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. The war was won already.

The damage caused by the atomic weapons wasn’t much worse from conventional bombing but it showed what 1no. Bomb could do v’s hundreds of conventional ones. Did they need to drop another?

The difference is, Israel’s objectives have not yet been met. Hamas has not been destroyed and their infrastructure has not been destroyed.

Until they’re satisfied, I think they’ll continue.

---------- Post added at 20:19 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------

Comparisons between WWII and this are unhelpful, I’ve done it myself. Maybe some parallels can be drawn but they should scrutinised as to their relevance.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

Actually, it’s not…

The adverse treatment of civilians in WW2 led to a new (the fourth) Geneva Convention, specifically to provide for the protection of civilians in wartime.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

I don’t think those additions have changed anything, in regards to this operation.

Its main objective seems to be to prevent slave Labour.

Such conventions exist only to be ignored by the superior power at the time. IF that power is defeated, then they may be brought to justice.

This one made me laugh

sounds like a decent description of thermo-nuclear weapons, they did well banning them, didn’t they?

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

World War was 80 years ago. Standards that were acceptable then are no longer accepted now.

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

As previously stated, the Geneva Conventions have been updated since WW2 to specifically increase sanctions against those who target civilians

Re: Hamas Israel War
 

If the whiners could provide the Israelis with the definite locations of Hamas military targets, then no problem. There isn't a clearly defined front line with targets in open view to aim at.