Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran … War

[Sephiroth]

It’s easy to be appalled as some of you demonstrate. Then you ask questions that are impossible to answer and then hold it against those who point that out.

Turning this on its head and suppose Israel’s response to the Atrocity was to do nothing? That would have been the only way to avoid what’s happening. So no response was a non-starter.

Now move forward: to eliminate Hamas, what should Israel have done?

It really is pointless bleating on about the civilian deaths other than the fact of how sad it is.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It’s easy to be appalled as some of you demonstrate. Then you ask questions that are impossible to answer and then hold it against those who point that out.

Turning this on its head and suppose Israel’s response to the Atrocity was to do nothing? That would have been the only way to avoid what’s happening. So no response was a non-starter.

Now move forward: to eliminate Hamas, what should Israel have done?

It really is pointless bleating on about the civilian deaths other than the fact of how sad it is.

You’ve been told - terrorism as an idea or a concept can’t be eliminated. As commuters who jump onto major transport infrastructure in any major city know.

The “objective” is the straw man at the centre of your entire argument.

There’s a huge range of methods which Israel could strike at the heart of Hamas capabilities and its leaders over a longer term than razing Gaza to the ground in 60 days.

We reject the entire premise so grounding your questions firmly within it is flawed.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It’s easy to be appalled as some of you demonstrate. Then you ask questions that are impossible to answer and then hold it against those who point that out.

Turning this on its head and suppose Israel’s response to the Atrocity was to do nothing? That would have been the only way to avoid what’s happening. So no response was a non-starter.

Now move forward: to eliminate Hamas, what should Israel have done?

It really is pointless bleating on about the civilian deaths other than the fact of how sad it is.

The questions are only impossible for you, and a select few, to answer it seems. Others are quite happy to confirm that killing 1000's of civilians and turning their communities to rubble pursuit of Hamas is wrong, on many levels.

I, and others, have said a number of alternate approaches that could have been taken but to be fair, you don't seem to want that discussion. Any ideas would be shot down without any serious attempt to engage, leaving just the current approach that is very "sad".

---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Fair enough, I remove "happy" from the record and replace with "acceptable"

You seem to be say everything, yet know nothing. Living in the real world, I know what any military action even those carefully planned & executed, especially in this part of the world, will result in some casualties. Only a child would not understand this.

However sanctioning, as you do, the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians is a world a way from this.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The questions are only impossible for you, and a select few, to answer it seems. Others are quite happy to confirm that killing 1000's of civilians and turning their communities to rubble pursuit of Hamas is wrong, on many levels.

<SNIP>.

The question that you and jfman have been putting is "how many dead Gazan children is too much? Where is the red line?" . That's very different from the pivot you've made in your response above.

Also you try to hide behind the "alternate approaches" you say you've suggested. None of them even touch my question which is:

Given the barbaric attack on Israel by Hamas on 07-Oct, when 1200 innocent people were butchered, what should Israel's response have been? How should they eliminate Hamas?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You seem to be say everything, yet know nothing. Living in the real world, I know what any military action even those carefully planned & executed, especially in this part of the world, will result in some casualties. Only a child would not understand this.

However sanctioning, as you do, the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians is a world a way from this.

I haven't sanctioned anything.

Originally Posted by ianch99

In pursuit of the terrorists, how many dead & injured civilians is "too many"?

I say one........ you say anything up to 500.

Got it.

Neither side is innocent in this and neither of them has any right to claim moral integrity.I also dislike the idea that we have to choose a side.

The world should NOT be picking a side in this.It should be condemning both of them and standing up to them and insisting that they stop making war on complete innocents.

I'm actually quite fearful that the world is on the verge of a possible conflagration that will suck us all in.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Neither side is innocent in this and neither of them has any right to claim moral integrity.I also dislike the idea that we have to choose a side.

The world should NOT be picking a side in this.It should be condemning both of them and standing up to them and insisting that they stop making war on complete innocents.

I'm actually quite fearful that the world is on the verge of a possible conflagration that will suck us all in.

Actually I'd say most Palestinians and most Israelis are innocent, they may partiality/ tacitly support the government/ regime but I'd imagine most just want to get on with life with as little trouble as possible, like the rest of us really, especially the children, as ever it's the extremists and nutters ruining it for everyone else

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Neither side is innocent in this and neither of them has any right to claim moral integrity.I also dislike the idea that we have to choose a side.

The world should NOT be picking a side in this.It should be condemning both of them and standing up to them and insisting that they stop making war on complete innocents.

I'm actually quite fearful that the world is on the verge of a possible conflagration that will suck us all in.

The world should NOT be picking a side in this. It should be condemning both of them and standing up to them and insisting that they stop making war on complete innocents.

It's difficult not to see value in your remark. But ....

Condemning the Ultras in the West Bank for their disgusting behaviour toward Palestinians doe not carry the same weight as condemning Hamas for their butchery, rape and murder.

And how should the world stand up to Hamas? The world generally finds it easy to condemn Israel.

Your "conflagration" point is interesting. There's no shortage of puppet-masters and malevolent actors who regard Israel and the USA as evil Satans. Theyt've already got conflagration going in Gaza.



---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:00 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Actually I'd say most Palestinians and most Israelis are innocent, they may partiality/ tacitly support the government/ regime but I'd imagine most just want to get on with life with as little trouble as possible, like the rest of us really, especially the children, as ever it's the extremists and nutters ruining it for everyone else

Trouble is that the Ultras number at least 1 million and their "innocence" is rather narrow.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The question that you and jfman have been putting is "how many dead Gazan children is too much? Where is the red line?" . That's very different from the pivot you've made in your response above.

Also you try to hide behind the "alternate approaches" you say you've suggested. None of them even touch my question which is:

Given the barbaric attack on Israel by Hamas on 07-Oct, when 1200 innocent people were butchered, what should Israel's response have been? How should they eliminate Hamas?

There is no pivot, you are just dancing around the problem. I think that, like other (adults) on this forum, that 10,000+ civilian deaths are too many. You, by sanctioning the current IDF campaign, do not. We need a ceasefire and the UN, led by the US, should go in and create safe havens for the displaced population so they can literally live some form of a life.

You use emotive words to somehow validate the current IDF response. Should I use phrases like "babies crushed under tons of rubble, children having torn limbs amputated without anaesthetic, premature infants dying in incubators without power, and so on." due to IDF bombing & shelling? It works both ways.

What should Israel's response have been? It should have been considered, measured and surgical. It should have used world opinion to help pursue Hamas leadership & funding, in the same way Putin was sanction after invading Ukraine. It should have stopped the illegal ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and removed the settlements installed over the last 20 years.

By doing this it would have shown, like was done in NI, that there is another way to violence and at the same would disenfranchise the appeal of Hamas and restore momentum in the more centrist Palestinian & wider pan-Arab factions.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The question that you and jfman have been putting is "how many dead Gazan children is too much? Where is the red line?" . That's very different from the pivot you've made in your response above.

Also you try to hide behind the "alternate approaches" you say you've suggested. None of them even touch my question which is:

Given the barbaric attack on Israel by Hamas on 07-Oct, when 1200 innocent people were butchered, what should Israel's response have been? How should they eliminate Hamas?

There’s no hiding behind anything in pointing out that the daily massacre of women and children in Gaza is a wholly disproportionate response to a terrorist act.

By being unable to understand this concept - or unwilling to humanise Palestinian life in the same way everyone is encouraged to does in order to draw out emotive responses for Israeli life (rape, beheadings, etc) - and unable to state a limit leads ultimately to the tacit approval of unlimited barbarity by the Israeli state up to and including the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

Once again you put up the straw man of eliminating Hamas. As worthwhile a concept in the discussion as a manned mission to Mars.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s no hiding behind anything in pointing out that the daily massacre of women and children in Gaza is a wholly disproportionate response to a terrorist act.

By being unable to understand this concept - or unwilling to humanise Palestinian life in the same way everyone is encouraged to does in order to draw out emotive responses for Israeli life (rape, beheadings, etc) - and unable to state a limit leads ultimately to the tacit approval of unlimited barbarity by the Israeli state up to and including the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

Once again you put up the straw man of eliminating Hamas. As worthwhile a concept in the discussion as a manned mission to Mars.

This is where you let yourself down. For obvious reasons that I do not need to state.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think that, like other (adults) on this forum

debatable

that 10,000+ civilian deaths are too many.

I think one civilian death is too many, you don’t.

You, by sanctioning the current IDF campaign, do not. We need a ceasefire and the UN, led by the US, should go in and create safe havens for the displaced population so they can literally live some form of a life.

He, nor I, or anyone else on here, has “sanctioned” anything. You can only sanction something if you have control over it.

You use emotive words to somehow validate the current IDF response. Should I use phrases like "babies crushed under tons of rubble, children having torn limbs amputated without anaesthetic, premature infants dying in incubators without power, and so on." due to IDF bombing & shelling? It works both ways.

You can, you just did.

What should Israel's response have been? It should have been considered, measured and surgical.

it was considered, it was measured, surgical is an interesting one you’d have to explain in your vast military experience what you mean by that.

It should have used world opinion to help pursue Hamas leadership & funding, in the same way Putin was sanction after invading Ukraine.

What sanctions would you suggest? Cutting power, water, closing crossings to stop imports/ exports……………

It should have stopped the illegal ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and removed the settlements installed over the last 20 years.

The West Bank is a problem and I don’t agree with Israel’s actions in the West Bank, but the West Bank is a separate issue to Gaza.

By doing this it would have shown, like was done in NI, that there is another way to violence and at the same would disenfranchise the appeal of Hamas and restore momentum in the more centrist Palestinian & wider pan-Arab factions.

N.I. Can in no way be correlated or compared to this situation at any level.

---------- Post added at 22:33 ---------- Previous post was at 22:30 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

the straw man of eliminating Hamas

Eliminating Hamas, or at the very least nullifying them so that they are no longer a threat, is not a straw man, it’s a valid objective. How that objective is achieved is very much up for discussion

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This is where you let yourself down. For obvious reasons that I do not need to state.

I’d prefer you stated them in all truth. There’s nothing obvious about it.

A cursory glance around the world sees terror group after terror group rise up from the smouldering ashes of their ancestors (metaphorically and literally). There’s always people with an axe to grind and always someone willing to fund it.

Israel - by playing fast and loose with the “international rules based order” - endangers itself, Jews around the world, America and it’s allies. For a man who sees danger in small boats, the ramifications should be obvious to you.

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Eliminating Hamas, or at the very least nullifying them so that they are no longer a threat, is not a straw man, it’s a valid objective. How that objective is achieved is very much up for discussion

There’s nuance between eliminating and nullifying. The latter is very much achievable but it’s as much about defensive capabilities as offensive. It can certainly be achieved by an alternate means.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s nuance between eliminating and nullifying. The latter is very much achievable but it’s as much about defensive capabilities as offensive. It can certainly be achieved by an alternate means.

Possibly, but I’m not……and I don’t think anyone else on this forum is……qualified to advise the Israeli government and intelligence services how to achieve it and by what means.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’d prefer you stated them in all truth. There’s nothing obvious about it.

A cursory glance around the world sees terror group after terror group rise up from the smouldering ashes of their ancestors (metaphorically and literally). There’s always people with an axe to grind and always someone willing to fund it.

Israel - by playing fast and loose with the “international rules based order” - endangers itself, Jews around the world, America and it’s allies. For a man who sees danger in small boats, the ramifications should be obvious to you.

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:34 ----------



There’s nuance between eliminating and nullifying. The latter is very much achievable but it’s as much about defensive capabilities as offensive. It can certainly be achieved by an alternate means.

I see the real possibility that the same types as Hamas are entering the UK via the small boats.

On your final paragraph, remember that Israel reacted with justifiable fury to the unjustified butchering of 1200 people by Hamas. As I've pointed out the alternative to the civilian casualties was no response. Is that what you're putting forward?