Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran … War

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I make no assumption. Israel is doing what it's doing in Gaza in self defence, to protect its security in a hostile region. That is permitted.

I have already said I have concerns about who attacked those trying to flee to the south, as the Israelis told them to do. If that was Israel's doing, they will need to account for that.

Once again demonstrating that you font understand war crimes. Self-defence doesn’t exempt Israel from its responsibilities.

Your support for collective punishment remains despicable.

The families in Gaza need to suck on that.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Once again demonstrating that you font understand war crimes. Self-defence doesn’t exempt Israel from its responsibilities.

Your support for collective punishment remains despicable.

I don't think you understand that in war, collateral damage happens, and Israel is not breaking international law by taking appropriate measures to protect itself. A country at war is expected to protect civilians where it can, but no party in a war can ensure that collateral damage does not happen.

As for the 'suck on that' comment, I was pointing out that people should be careful what they wish for when they vote. Hamas was voted into power, so they bear some responsibility for where we are now.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't think you understand that in war, collateral damage happens, and Israel is not breaking international law by taking appropriate measures to protect itself. A country at war is expected to protect civilians where it can, but no party in a war can ensure that collateral damage does not happen.

As for the 'suck on that' comment, I was pointing out that people should be careful what they wish for when they vote. Hamas was voted into power, so they bear some responsibility for where we are now.

“Collateral damage” isn’t expelling 1 million people from their homes, turning off water, electricity and blocking aid from Egypt.

Those are punitive measures. There’s nothing “self-defence” about it. You are either too stupid to understand what you are witnessing, too stupid to understand self-defence isn’t an exemption from international law, or both.

The crux of your position:

The families in Gaza need to suck on that.

Remains fundamentally flawed. You’ve been told that the vast majority of people in Gaza are too young to have voted in that election before. You’ve been told that of those who were eligible a majority voted for someone else.

If you can’t integrate reality into your own “insight” then I can’t help you.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

“Collateral damage” isn’t expelling 1 million people from their homes, turning off water, electricity and blocking aid from Egypt.

Those are punitive measures. There’s nothing “self-defence” about it. You are either too stupid to understand what you are witnessing, too stupid to understand self-defence isn’t an exemption from international law, or both.

The crux of your position:



Remains fundamentally flawed. You’ve been told that the vast majority of people in Gaza are too young to have voted in that election before. You’ve been told that of those who were eligible a majority voted for someone else.

If you can’t integrate reality into your own “insight” then I can’t help you.

Problem with this part of the discussion is that both of you are right.

OB is basically saying that retaliation by Israel was inevitable given the Hamas atrocities and the severity of that retaliation is thereby justified. What else was Israel to do? Ask the stupid UN to sort it out? And the people of Gaza voted for Hamas, so there.

jfman is saying that the calamitous effect on innocent people is deplorable.

Seph is saying that Hamas are the bar stewards here, hiding among the people they've screwed over in their hatred of Israel and its Jews. The innocent people, for that's what they are, are the victims of Hamas' callousness.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I make no assumption. Israel is doing what it's doing in Gaza in self defence, to protect its security in a hostile region. That is permitted.

I have already said I have concerns about who attacked those trying to flee to the south, as the Israelis told them to do. If that was Israel's doing, they will need to account for that.

You're evading the point Old Boy. No one is denying Israel its right to self defence. But collective punishment, namely cutting off the utilities to Gaza is a war crime. It's not a case of permitting them or not, no one except Israel can permit them to be turned on again.

How will Israel account for its bombings in the south?

On another note, I've been reading that Egypt is getting annoyed at western requests to open its borders. It is struggling financially and doesn't want a million refugees especially in a border region with poor infrastructure.

Things are looking bleak for the Palestinians in Gaza. The best hope I can think of is aid and for Israel to step back.

[jfman]

Blinken has clearly been getting rebuked all round his tour of Arab states who clearly hold Israel and Israel alone responsible for events unfolding in Gaza hence the need for Biden to intervene.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Arab states who clearly hold Israel and Israel alone responsible for events unfolding in Gaza

Well they would think that wouldn't they?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well they would think that wouldn't they?

Well yes, considering the body count in the chart Ian posted last week over the last decade or so, choosing an arbitrary starting point that suits the Israeli narrative would be unlikely considering they are allies of the Palestinian people.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

choosing an arbitrary starting point that suits the Israeli narrative

As Chris, has pointed out much earlier in this thread, everybody on either side likes to pick arbitrary starting points regarding that location to suit their narrative.

Originally Posted by Pierre

As Chris, has pointed out much earlier in this thread, everybody on either side likes to pick arbitrary starting points regarding that location to suit their narrative.

I’ve asked Seph, in particular, multiple times to justify his choice of 1948 as his starting point. I was picking on him only because when he set out his potted history of the conflict he made a point of claiming to have done a lot of work to provide detail. I dispute any claim that a summary starting in 1948 comes anywhere close to the necessary detail. It’s like trying to understand World War 2 while assuming nothing important occurred prior to 3rd September 1939.

I repeated my request to Seph when he made comments about people choosing either to blame, or ignore, British foreign policy (especially in the context of empire). The British ruled the territory in question under authorisation from the United Nations via the Mandate for Palestine from 1920 to 1948 and many of the reasons why it has been impossible to get the parties to come to terms are rooted in that period (though not exclusively - you really have to go back to the mid 19th century to really understand how we got to where we are now).

Sadly, on both occasions, Seph has chosen to ignore my requests.

[Sephiroth]

No - I haven't ignored; I just hadn't noticed a request from Chris.
And, of course I'll respond when I'm not stuck in a Stop Oil protest in London.

Btw, I would have started the WW2 potted history at around 1915.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

I’ve asked Seph, in particular, multiple times to justify his choice of 1948 as his starting point. I was picking on him only because when he set out his potted history of the conflict he made a point of claiming to have done a lot of work to provide detail. I dispute any claim that a summary starting in 1948 comes anywhere close to the necessary detail. It’s like trying to understand World War 2 while assuming nothing important occurred prior to 3rd September 1939.

I repeated my request to Seph when he made comments about people choosing either to blame, or ignore, British foreign policy (especially in the context of empire). The British ruled the territory in question under authorisation from the United Nations via the Mandate for Palestine from 1920 to 1948 and many of the reasons why it has been impossible to get the parties to come to terms are rooted in that period (though not exclusively - you really have to go back to the mid 19th century to really understand how we got to where we are now).

Sadly, on both occasions, Seph has chosen to ignore my requests.

I don't like to dodge a question and I appreciate the reminder.

You used the term "potted history". Indeed, that is what I intended. There was no selectivity about it, 1948 seemed the correct starting point because that was when the first war between Israel and its neighbours started. I don't see what the British mandate had to do with any of this current stuff, which is rooted in the ideological clash between certain Arabs and Israel as a whole. The Ottoman stuff is irrelevant. Arabs with guns hate Jews and last week murdered hundreds. Jews with guns will fight Arabs with guns but won't murder ordinary civilians.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't like to dodge a question and I appreciate the reminder.

You used the term "potted history". Indeed, that is what I intended. There was no selectivity about it, 1948 seemed the correct starting point because that was when the first war between Israel and its neighbours started. I don't see what the British mandate had to do with any of this current stuff, which is rooted in the ideological clash between certain Arabs and Israel as a whole. The Ottoman stuff is irrelevant. Arabs with guns hate Jews and last week murdered hundreds. Jews with guns will fight Arabs with guns but won't murder ordinary civilians.

You’re wrong on all counts. Fatally so, for anyone in a position of diplomatic influence in these matters. Thankfully you aren’t (nor, I assume, is anyone else here, including me).

First, as I said, (and as you appeared to agree), if you start your examination when the guns start firing you will not understand why the guns are firing. You can’t understand WW2 from 1939 and you can’t understand Israel-Palestine from 1948.

Second, it was during the British mandate that Palestinian political consciousness was born. Prior to the inter-communal riots of the 1920s - which occurred under British rule and which the British Mandate authorities did little to address - the concept of Palestinian nationhood simply did not exist. That’s not to say the ethnic Arab inhabitants there had no aspirations to self-determination, but there was no politically driven, common Palestinian identity as there is today. The British influence in the very existence of the concept of Palestine as a national identity cannot be overlooked.

Third, again, under the British Mandate, Arabs were prevented from unifying effectively under their developing Palestinian identity because the British authorities actively worked to keep the various factions squabbling with each other. This was standard Empire tactics designed to make administration easier (basically, divide and rule). The British ruled by the issuing of patronage, in ways that were deliberately fuzzy around the edges. In Jerusalem, for example, civic and religious order were given to two rival factions. Jerusalem being what it always has been, that was always going to be a recipe for chaos.

Fourth, the Ottoman stuff is absolutely not irrelevant. Your dismissal of it in this way indicates that you actually don’t understand the Ottoman stuff at all. Perhaps if you prove me wrong by outlining *why* you think it’s irrelevant, I’ll respond by demonstrating why it absolutely is.

Remember, the Palestine-Israel conflict is never just about resolving the latest flare-up. It is the intractable search for a lasting peace in which two deeply opposed groups of people can learn to live side by side. Dismissing their mutual history - which you are so obviously doing, even while pretending you’re not - is exactly the way to ensure no such settlement occurs.

[1andrew1]

There seems to be a popular trend amongst right-wingers to dismiss history and in particular the history of British colonialism as woke, so it should be ignored. It sits in their minds alongside other things they perceive as woke like the BBC, Disney, London, Greta Thunberg, 20 mph speed limits and avocados.

That's either plain laziness or a means of ignoring evidence that doesn't suit their world view.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

There seems to be a popular trend amongst right-wingers to dismiss history and in particular the history of British colonialism as woke, so it should be ignored. It sits in their minds alongside other things they perceive as woke like the BBC, Disney, London, Greta Thunberg, 20 mph speed limits and avocados.

That's either plain laziness or a means of ignoring evidence that doesn't suit their world view.

You paint pictures with a very broad brush, Andrew. You will never understand ‘right wingers’ as you put it. I certainly don’t think of anything is colonialist terms.

The problem with where we are now may have started way back in history, but the problem now is getting a just solution to the problems history has created. That must commence with peace talks, which is not possible while Hamas is in this poisonous mix.

As for colonialism, this is a left wing obsession. Colonialism was before my time, and yours.