Hamas Israel War

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to tar pro-Palestinian demonstrators as “anti-Israel” because they oppose Israel’s actions.

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s a perverse interpretation of events to solely blame Hamas.

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.

At some point Israel deserves criticism for its actions.

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.

I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to tar pro-Palestinian demonstrators as “anti-Israel” because they oppose Israel’s actions.

May not be helpful but it’s true.

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

You’ve moved the goalposts here Pierre.

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s a perverse interpretation of events to solely blame Hamas.

Why ?

Originally Posted by jfman

At some point Israel deserves criticism for its actions.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

Why ?

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

Well you seem to have stepped in to do that in spades.
It’s 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.

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.

[Sephiroth]

What's missing from John's thinking is any parallel with WW2 and the fight against the Nazis.

Britain had to fight Germany in its self defence. Innocent people died on both sides, but that kind of war brings that kind of consequence.

It's no different with Israel vs Hamas. The Germans voted for Hitler in 1933 and there was never another vote. Palestinians in Gaza voted for Hamas in 2005 (or thereabouts) and there was never another vote.

Germany was bombed to bits; and there was no outcry in Britain. War is as much war now as then. Same in Ukraine, which is trying to defend itself.

Bleating about the civilian casualties in Gaza suggests a bias towards the the Gazans, whose plight is entirely down to the actions of Hamas.

Virtue signalling for a ceasefire is pointless; Israel has to defend itself and they will decide whether or not a ceasefire is to happen.

And remember, 100,00 Gaza sympathisers took to the streets, many of them calling for the obliteration of Israel and the Jews. Hitler tried that and many civilian casualties later, he was defeated.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Germany was bombed to bits; and there was no outcry in Britain.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What's missing from John's thinking is any parallel with WW2 and the fight against the Nazis.

Britain had to fight Germany in its self defence. Innocent people died on both sides, but that kind of war brings that kind of consequence.

It's no different with Israel vs Hamas. The Germans voted for Hitler in 1933 and there was never another vote. Palestinians in Gaza voted for Hamas in 2005 (or thereabouts) and there was never another vote.

Germany was bombed to bits; and there was no outcry in Britain. War is as much war now as then. Same in Ukraine, which is trying to defend itself.

Bleating about the civilian casualties in Gaza suggests a bias towards the the Gazans, whose plight is entirely down to the actions of Hamas.

Virtue signalling for a ceasefire is pointless; Israel has to defend itself and they will decide whether or not a ceasefire is to happen.

And remember, 100,00 Gaza sympathisers took to the streets, many of them calling for the obliteration of Israel and the Jews. Hitler tried that and many civilian casualties later, he was defeated.

"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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

"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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What's missing from John's thinking is any parallel with WW2 and the fight against the Nazis.

Britain had to fight Germany in its self defence. Innocent people died on both sides, but that kind of war brings that kind of consequence.

It's no different with Israel vs Hamas. The Germans voted for Hitler in 1933 and there was never another vote. Palestinians in Gaza voted for Hamas in 2005 (or thereabouts) and there was never another vote.

Germany was bombed to bits; and there was no outcry in Britain. War is as much war now as then. Same in Ukraine, which is trying to defend itself.

Bleating about the civilian casualties in Gaza suggests a bias towards the the Gazans, whose plight is entirely down to the actions of Hamas.

Virtue signalling for a ceasefire is pointless; Israel has to defend itself and they will decide whether or not a ceasefire is to happen.

And remember, 100,00 Gaza sympathisers took to the streets, many of them calling for the obliteration of Israel and the Jews. Hitler tried that and many civilian casualties later, he was defeated.

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.

Articles were also put in place to protect wounded, sick and pregnant civilians as well as mothers and children. It also stated civilians may not be collectively deported or made to work on behalf of an occupying force without pay. All civilians should receive adequate medical care and be allowed to go about their daily lives as much as possible.

… In 1977, Protocols I and II were added to the Conventions of 1949. Protocol I increased protections for civilians, military workers and journalists during international armed conflicts. It also banned the use of “weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering,” or cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.”

According to the Red Cross, Protocol II was established because most victims of armed conflicts since the 1949 Convention were victims of vicious civil wars. The Protocol stated all people not taking up arms be treated humanely and there should never be an order by anyone in command for “no survivors.”

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.

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

It also banned the use of “weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering,” or cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.”

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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

@Andrew & @Pierre

You may consider comparisons with WW2 unhelpful, but I disagree. The psychology of war is eternal, imo. Hatred and/or territory.

Please remember, that I'm tilting at the position being taken by jfman, whose posts are very one sided.

As to Andrew's remark about "standards" - no, the Geneva Convention applied then as it does now.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@Andrew & @Pierre

You may consider comparisons with WW2 unhelpful, but I disagree. The psychology of war is eternal, imo. Hatred and/or territory.

Please remember, that I'm tilting at the position being taken by jfman, whose posts are very one sided.

As to Andrew's remark about "standards" - no, the Geneva Convention applied then as it does now.

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

[nomadking]

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.