Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran … War

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s a wild difference between collateral damage and the mass destruction of the homes of 2 million people.

Iran has come to their rescue by exposing the weaknesses of the American/Israeli alliance. No more can the gulf oil states rely on the global policeman to guarantee their security. Nor can they guarantee traffic through the Strait of Hormuz as a key artery for the global economy.

Iranian target practice has probably gave the Russians and Chinese incredible insight into weaknesses in state of the art American military technology. And the world is a far less safe place place for it.

The terrorism on our own doorstep is indeed alarming, which is why we shouldn’t bind our foreign policy to the bloodlust of Benjamin Netanyahu. The best case scenario is he loses the election and someone more moderate takes his place.

There’s a wild difference between collateral damage and the mass destruction of the homes of 2 million people.

Those people shouldn't have voted for a terrorist administration (Hamas).

Iran has come to their rescue by exposing the weaknesses of the American/Israeli alliance. No more can the gulf oil states rely on the global policeman to guarantee their security. Nor can they guarantee traffic through the Strait of Hormuz as a key artery for the global economy.

Are you real? Iran is the terrorist state. What have I misunderstood?

The terrorism on our own doorstep is indeed alarming, which is why we shouldn’t bind our foreign policy to the bloodlust of Benjamin Netanyahu. The best case scenario is he loses the election and someone more moderate takes his place.[

There's considerable merit in your final sentence above. But the preceding sentence is nonsense. We don't bind our foreign policy to Israel. We are anti-terrorism (as in Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran). We also recognise the right of Israel to defend itself. It's a pity that Netanyahu is the one doing the defending, though given how Hamas and Hezbollah hide within the population, how would you suggest those terrorist elements are destroyed?

Those people shouldn't have voted for a terrorist administration (Hamas).

As has been pointed out before, the last election was in 2006, 20 years ago - 75% of the population is under 25, so pretty sure they didn’t vote anyone in…

https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/palestine/gaza

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

As has been pointed out before, the last election was in 2006, 20 years ago - 75% of the population is under 25, so pretty sure they didn’t vote anyone in…

https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/palestine/gaza

I know. Gaza is/was a terrorist state. Israel holds elections every four years.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I know. Gaza is/was a terrorist state. Israel holds elections every four years.

If you know, why did you state

Those people shouldn't have voted for a terrorist administration (Hamas).

In response to

There’s a wild difference between collateral damage and the mass destruction of the homes of 2 million people

when at least 75% didn’t vote for Hamas?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If you know, why did you state



In response to



when at least 75% didn’t vote for Hamas?

Because the people who voted for Hamas 20 years ago were also hell-bent on the destruction of Israel.

The House of Commons Library, no less, reported on the Hamas election victory from which I have selected a relevant paragraph:

https://researchbriefings.files.parl...17/RP06-17.pdf

It is the position adopted by Hamas on the peace process, however, that has caused concern in Israel and internationally. The movement’s charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and its paramilitary wing has played a leading role in the second Intifada, carrying out numerous suicide bomb attacks and rocket strikes against Israeli civilians. The Israeli Government has said it will not cooperate with a Palestinian administration that includes Hamas, while the Middle East Quartet (UN, EU, Russia and United States) have called on Hamas to renounce violence and to recognise Israel, or face a dramatic cut in aid to the Palestinian Authority. Hamas says it will seek funding from Arab states and other sources to compensate for any shortfall.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jfman

The terrorism on our own doorstep is indeed alarming, which is why we shouldn’t bind our foreign policy to the bloodlust of Benjamin Netanyahu. The best case scenario is he loses the election and someone more moderate takes his place.

Someone like Rabin, who they murdered...

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Because the people who voted for Hamas 20 years ago were also hell-bent on the destruction of Israel

Yes and 75% of the people currently existing there never voted for them..

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Someone like Rabin, who they murdered...




Yes and 75% of the people currently existing there never voted for them..

Don't you think it likely that, had there not been the recent events, that 75% would have voted for Hamas in any election? Were the 75% complaining that there was no election? Did the 75% cheer the Hamas murders?

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...es-2023-12-14/

JERUSALEM, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Almost three in four Palestinians believe the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel was correct, and the ensuing Gaza war has lifted support for the Islamist group both there and in the West Bank, a survey from a respected Palestinian polling institute found.

The Palestinian Center for Policy Survey and Research (PCPSR) findings were published as international alarm grows over the spiralling Palestinian civilian toll in the Israeli counter-offensive against Hamas, now in its third month.
Seventy-two percent of respondents said they believed the Hamas decision to launch the cross-border rampage in southern Israel was "correct" given its outcome so far, while 22% said it was "incorrect". The remainder were undecided or gave no answer.

Hamas, which is sworn to Israel's destruction, has ruled Gaza since splitting with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2007. The PA exercises limited governance in the West Bank.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Don't you think it likely that, had there not been the recent events, that 75% would have voted for Hamas in any election? Were the 75% complaining that there was no election? Did the 75% cheer the Hamas murders?

If the facts don't suit just change the question till you can shoehorn it into an answer that does...

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

If the facts don't suit just change the question till you can shoehorn it into an answer that does...

To be fair, the line about people in Gaza today not having voted for Hamas is a pretty blatant ordering of facts in order to prove a point not supported by those facts.

The lack of an election simply tells you that you don’t have an election to tell you what people think. It certainly does not tell you that 75% of Gazans don’t support Hamas, which is always the inference dangled by those who raise this point.

There are other ways of determining levels of support for Hamas in Gaza. Interviewing Gazans is a decent one. I don’t see too many of them willing to denounce Hamas.

[Sephiroth]

Those terrorists hate Israel, hate Jews and murder them across the world. And all in the name of Islam.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

To be fair, the line about people in Gaza today not having voted for Hamas is a pretty blatant ordering of facts in order to prove a point not supported by those facts.

The lack of an election simply tells you that you don’t have an election to tell you what people think. It certainly does not tell you that 75% of Gazans don’t support Hamas, which is always the inference dangled by those who raise this point.

There are other ways of determining levels of support for Hamas in Gaza. Interviewing Gazans is a decent one. I don’t see too many of them willing to denounce Hamas.

In fairness it wasn't Hamas that bombed them into oblivion, which is probably their most immediate concern. If you asked them today support for armed struggle against Israel has probably gone up - it's a far easier choice if you have nothing left and will be collectively punished anyway.

Equally if Hamas - terrorists - were so all encompassing in terms if the administration of Gaza prior to this why would anyone civilian speak out to put themselves and their families at risk for the performative pleasure of people in the west indifferent to their destruction?

Originally Posted by jfman

In fairness it wasn't Hamas that bombed them into oblivion, which is probably their most immediate concern. If you asked them today support for armed struggle against Israel has probably gone up - it's a far easier choice if you have nothing left and will be collectively punished anyway.

Equally if Hamas - terrorists - were so all encompassing in terms if the administration of Gaza prior to this why would anyone civilian speak out to put themselves and their families at risk for the performative pleasure of people in the west indifferent to their destruction?

As always with this conflict, one picks one’s starting point for outrage, and off one goes ….

I’d argue that on 7/10/23 when thousands of them - and not all die-hard Hamas lifers - went on a raping, torturing, murdering spree around southern Israel, support for Hamas seemed pretty high, what with all the Ally Ackbar chanting that was broadcast round the world that day. The fact that when it came to retaliation, Israel was simply better at it should surprise nobody. And the idea that the IDF poured all those munitions into a situation with no back-story is for the birds.

And on the subject of starting points, the problem for Palestinian activists has never been 1967, it was always 1948. ‘From the River to the Sea’ claims the entire land as Palestinian and requiring to be freed from Jews. It is in the political DNA of every ethnic Arab who calls himself Palestinian. Even the relatively moderate Palestinians, the ones sane enough to be invited to treaty talks, always refused the two-state solution when it came to signing on the dotted line. Two states has never truly been on the table. Not in 1948, not at Camp David, not now.

Meanwhile, yes, I acknowledge, speaking out against Hamas has obvious risks. But turning a blind eye and letting them turn the whole of Gaza into an underground terror bunker hasn’t exactly worked out well for them either. Eventually a person has to make some honest appraisal of what’s in the best interests of his family. Golda Meir always believed “ Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.”

[jfman]

Perhaps one might suggest to Benjamin Netanyahu and his enablers that Golda Meir did not mean by his statement to set the bar as high as possible. Millions of displaced people have lost their homes, jobs, and family members at Israeli hands.

I’m not really sure why Palestinians should oppose tunnels being built - presumably these provide shelter in the event of Israeli air raids, and support wider logistical clandestine activities more generally while under military occupation.

The attitude appears to be that Palestinians should just take what’s coming to them and be grateful. Something no population, anywhere, is likely to do. Nobody would criticise Ukrainians for building tunnels, in their own land, and lobbing a grenade at a Russian from one.

This is a hypocrisy that will only make our own streets less safe in future years.

[papa smurf]

what a relief to see trumpalumpa signing americas surrender document,after the bigliest balls up since Vietnam, oohrah trumpalumpa's usa

Originally Posted by papa smurf

what a relief to see trumpalumpa signing americas surrender document,after the bigliest balls up since Vietnam, oohrah trumpalumpa's usa

At Versailles, no less...


<cough, cough> don't mention any previous treaties signed at Versailles... <cough, cough>