Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran … War

[Pierre]

The West Bank as I state, yes. Gaza has been free of Israeli occupation since 2005, and before Israel took it, it was part of Egypt.

But that’s semantics, the term occupiers, has been levelled at Israel for existing, that’s what I object to.

Palestine doesn’t exist, has never existed, you can’t occupy something that doesn’t exist.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The USA says otherwise:

Well clearly they appear to be wrong. If Gaza was already "occupied" then Israel would not have had to move into it again after the Oct 7th Hamas events (indeed, they probably wish they had still occupied it, as those events would likely not have happened).

[jfman]

Ouch!

---------- Post added 10-12-2023 at 00:00 ---------- Previous post was 09-12-2023 at 23:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Well clearly they appear to be wrong. If Gaza was already "occupied" then Israel would not have had to move into it again after the Oct 7th Hamas events (indeed, they probably wish they had still occupied it, as those events would likely not have happened).

More inclined to believe the United States Government than someone on an internet forum tbf.

One suspects their definition of “occupied” is more robust than the selective interpretations we see on here to absolve Israel of its humanitarian responsibilities. A damning indictment of the views of some on here as to whether Palestinians have humanitarian rights at all.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

However, there is more from a non-paywalled source with in depth analysis. The Palestinian PM makes a valid point, seen from here:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-plan-for-gaza

That's an interesting find that makes sense.

Also Sky News is saying that the US will countenance Israel's invasion until the end of the year but Israel wants longer.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-clock...ution-13026178

Originally Posted by jfman
More inclined to believe the United States Government than someone on an internet forum tbf.

One suspects their definition of “occupied” is more robust than the selective interpretations we see on here to absolve Israel of its humanitarian responsibilities. A damning indictment of the views of some on here as to whether Palestinians have humanitarian rights at all.

Yes, it's about the definition. Discussed here. The article lists a selection of bodies who categorise Gaza as being occupied and notes

While they acknowledge that Israel no longer had the traditional marker of effective control after the disengagement—a military presence—they hold that with the help of technology, it has maintained the requisite control in other ways.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...rnational-law/

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That's an interesting find that makes sense.

Also Sky News is saying that the US will countenance Israel's invasion until the end of the year but Israel wants longer.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-clock...ution-13026178
More inclined to believe the United States Government than someone on an internet forum tbf.

One suspects their definition of “occupied” is more robust than the selective interpretations we see on here to absolve Israel of its humanitarian responsibilities. A damning indictment of the views of some on here as to whether Palestinians have humanitarian rights at all.
Yes, it's about the definition. Discussed here. The article lists a selection of bodies who categorise Gaza as being occupied and notes

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...rnational-law/

I’d personally take the view that anything the US says is the minimum tolerable position.

As Israel’s only ally, they will naturally push back (regardless of evidence) against claims of war crimes or ethnic cleansing, and of course the worst accusations made by Palestinians of genocide.

.

Originally Posted by jfman

I’d personally take the view that anything the US says is the minimum tolerable position.

Of course, how could I forget, your view is the only one that matters.

Originally Posted by jfman

As Israel’s only ally, they will naturally push back

Only ally ? Based on what exactly ?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Paul

Of course, how could I forget, your view is the only one that matters.

I don't think that jfman is stating that his opinion is the only one that matters.

[ianch99]

Even the USA are starting to wobble on backing the ongoing slaughter in Gaza:

Biden says Netanyahu must change Israel government, losing global support

U.S. President Joe Biden said on Tuesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to change his hardline government and that Israel cannot say no in the future to a Palestinian state, ramping up pressure on the Israelis.

Biden's remarks at a fundraising event for his 2024 re-election campaign was a further sign of growing U.S. concern at Israel's bombing in Gaza in which thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed.

"They're starting to lose that support," Biden said, referring to the international community's alarm at the bombing.

Biden specifically mentioned Israel's far-right politician Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is Israel's national security minister, and said "this is the most conservative government in Israel's history."

"He (Netanyahu) has to change this government. This government in Israel is making it very difficult," Biden said.

He also said that ultimately Israel "can't say no" to a Palestinian state, which Israeli hardliners oppose.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Even the USA are starting to wobble on backing the ongoing slaughter in Gaza:

Biden says Netanyahu must change Israel government, losing global support

It would be good if you, Andrew, jfman and others who only seem to have bad words for Israel, could acknowledge Israel's single minded purpose of eliminating Hamas. You should want that too - although none of us would want the civilian casualties that accompany war.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It would be good if you, Andrew, jfman and others who only seem to have bad words for Israel, could acknowledge Israel's single minded purpose of eliminating Hamas. You should want that too - although none of us would want the civilian casualties that accompany war.

You mean, of course, their single minded purpose in killing civilians ... sorry, damaging collateral.

Meanwhile, back in the grown up world:

UN backs demand for immediate Gaza ceasefire

The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly adopted a non-binding resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.

153 member states voted in favour, 10 against and there were 23 abstentions.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You mean, of course, their single minded purpose in killing civilians ... sorry, damaging collateral.

Meanwhile, back in the grown up world:

UN backs demand for immediate Gaza ceasefire

It's quite telling that you have doubled down on the casualties aspect without taking into account the barbaric actions of Hamas on 7-Oct. And then the condescending "grown up" remark that you needn't have made.

Why would Israel have a 'single minded purpose in killing civilians'? That's an awful thing to say. The civilians are suffering through collateral damage, which is not intentional. However it is clear that Israel's mission against Hamas comes first and collateral damage matters less to them than eliminating Hamas.

If you and those who take a similar line to yours could come from the aspect I've stated, we could have a reasonable debate. At the moment, you ignore what's driving Israel.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's quite telling that you have doubled down on the casualties aspect without taking into account the barbaric actions of Hamas on 7-Oct. And then the condescending "grown up" remark that you needn't have made.

Why would Israel have a 'single minded purpose in killing civilians'? That's an awful thing to say. The civilians are suffering through collateral damage, which is not intentional. However it is clear that Israel's mission against Hamas comes first and collateral damage matters less to them than eliminating Hamas.

If you and those who take a similar line to yours could come from the aspect I've stated, we could have a reasonable debate. At the moment, you ignore what's driving Israel.

So many times now, I, and others, have absolutely condemned Hamas and its actions. Are you such a pedant that every post must includes the words "and I also condemns Hamas and its barbaric actions"?

Seriously, I do not know how to respond to posts like these.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

So many times now, I, and others, have absolutely condemned Hamas and its actions. Are you such a pedant that every post must includes the words "and I also condemns Hamas and its barbaric actions"?

Seriously, I do not know how to respond to posts like these.

There is a huge gap between what you write, condemning Israel as distinct from condemning Hamas.

I know exactly what you mean: It's the question as to whether or not Israel should continue its mission in the light of the civilian deaths.

Your answer is obviously 'No'. But you are not on the receiving end of Hamas rockets; you were not involved in the barbaric murders of 1200 Israelis. From Israel's point of view, eliminating Hamas is the goal they must achieve.

Then you'll say that Hamas will never be eliminated; the next generation will rise from the ashes etc. And then you might go on to say that a political solution for 2-states must be negotiated to avoid the next catastrophe..

Well yes, you'd probably be right but the 2-state solution requires will on both sides and that includes the Ultras of Israel and the cooperation of Iran. All pigs will fly stuff.

So what will stop the Israeli military action?

1. They've captured the Hamas leaders;

2. They declare their mission accomplished. That's possible and 31-Dec looms.

3. External political pressure (and no further supply of materiel) wins the day.

I know how to answer you. I can quite see why you don't know how to answer me.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

There is a huge gap between what you write, condemning Israel as distinct from condemning Hamas.

I know exactly what you mean: It's the question as to whether or not Israel should continue its mission in the light of the civilian deaths.

Your answer is obviously 'No'. But you are not on the receiving end of Hamas rockets; you were not involved in the barbaric murders of 1200 Israelis. From Israel's point of view, eliminating Hamas is the goal they must achieve.

Then you'll say that Hamas will never be eliminated; the next generation will rise from the ashes etc. And then you might go on to say that a political solution for 2-states must be negotiated to avoid the next catastrophe..

Well yes, you'd probably be right but the 2-state solution requires will on both sides and that includes the Ultras of Israel and the cooperation of Iran. All pigs will fly stuff.

So what will stop the Israeli military action?

1. They've captured the Hamas leaders;

2. They declare their mission accomplished. That's possible and 31-Dec looms.

3. External political pressure (and no further supply of materiel) wins the day.

I know how to answer you. I can quite see why you don't know how to answer me.

Cessation of support from the US and more pressure from the international community will likely end the invasion.

I think we all must also acknowledge that the method chosen by Israel to try and eliminate Hamas was chosen by some extent by the objective of keeping Netanyahu in power.

I am concerned that there is no robust plan for governing the Gaza when this happens.

[Sephiroth]

Who would want Gaza? It was Egyptian territory in 1976 and they didn't want it back.

Poor Israel, one might say. Now look what's happened.