Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
I think it's well past that to be honest. Both sides have long conceded any moral high ground, and both are deserving of extensive criticism.pblakeney said:
I think I'd find air strikes pretty terrifying. Maybe that's just me. I'm of the opinion (and stated as much last week) that soon there will be no "good guys".rjsterry said:
Israel hasn't carried out anything like the Hamas attack. Feels slightly nuts that I'm even having to point that out.rick_chasey said:
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
...0 -
I was referring to recent events as the area has been quiet for a while so out of people's consciousness. For a short period it was Hamas bad, Israel good. That has gone.Jezyboy said:
I think it's well past that to be honest. Both sides have long conceded any moral high ground, and both are deserving of extensive criticism.pblakeney said:
I think I'd find air strikes pretty terrifying. Maybe that's just me. I'm of the opinion (and stated as much last week) that soon there will be no "good guys".rjsterry said:
Israel hasn't carried out anything like the Hamas attack. Feels slightly nuts that I'm even having to point that out.rick_chasey said:
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Criticism of political decisions and strategy is fine. There are plenty within Israel criticising the huge security error and the political circumstances that led to it. What Hamas have done is far beyond criticism.Jezyboy said:
I think it's well past that to be honest. Both sides have long conceded any moral high ground, and both are deserving of extensive criticism.pblakeney said:
I think I'd find air strikes pretty terrifying. Maybe that's just me. I'm of the opinion (and stated as much last week) that soon there will be no "good guys".rjsterry said:
Israel hasn't carried out anything like the Hamas attack. Feels slightly nuts that I'm even having to point that out.rick_chasey said:
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
...
I also think that the 'both as bad as each other' narrative and equating Hamas actions with those of the IDF is exactly what Hamas want people to think.
They are not the same thing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
How do you square that with the body counts on each side?rjsterry said:
I also think that the 'both as bad as each other' narrative and equating Hamas actions with those of the IDF is exactly what Hamas want people to think.
They are not the same thing.
A dead person is a dead person, whether they were blown up by a bomb from an aeroplane whilst in their own bed or shot at a music festival.
0 -
They are the same thing - they are both using the means at their disposal to pursue their ends without too much care for the lives of the other side.rjsterry said:
Criticism of political decisions and strategy is fine. There are plenty within Israel criticising the huge security error and the political circumstances that led to it. What Hamas have done is far beyond criticism.Jezyboy said:
I think it's well past that to be honest. Both sides have long conceded any moral high ground, and both are deserving of extensive criticism.pblakeney said:
I think I'd find air strikes pretty terrifying. Maybe that's just me. I'm of the opinion (and stated as much last week) that soon there will be no "good guys".rjsterry said:
Israel hasn't carried out anything like the Hamas attack. Feels slightly nuts that I'm even having to point that out.rick_chasey said:
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
...
I also think that the 'both as bad as each other' narrative and equating Hamas actions with those of the IDF is exactly what Hamas want people to think.
They are not the same thing.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
One side set out to kill as many civilians as possible in the most barbaric way possible.rick_chasey said:
How do you square that with the body counts on each side?rjsterry said:
I also think that the 'both as bad as each other' narrative and equating Hamas actions with those of the IDF is exactly what Hamas want people to think.
They are not the same thing.
A dead person is a dead person, whether they were blown up by a bomb from an aeroplane whilst in their own bed or shot at a music festival.
The other is trying to achieve strategic objectives whilst mnimising civilian casualties. You can argue whether they are trying hard enough but to argue they are the same thing is wrong.
Ukraine kills civilians are they as bad as Hamas?1 -
I'll have to just disagree with both of you.
If the IDF were cutting off heads and filming it then you might have a point.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Terrorism is a tactic and the terror bit of the word is informative. They do not have the firepower to reasonably fight the Israeli military. It is the only 'attack' they have left. Hamas are hardly sending in the Apache's and flying gen 5 fighters over to precision bomb israeli positions, are they?surrey_commuter said:
One side set out to kill as many civilians as possible in the most barbaric way possible.rick_chasey said:
How do you square that with the body counts on each side?rjsterry said:
I also think that the 'both as bad as each other' narrative and equating Hamas actions with those of the IDF is exactly what Hamas want people to think.
They are not the same thing.
A dead person is a dead person, whether they were blown up by a bomb from an aeroplane whilst in their own bed or shot at a music festival.
The other is trying to achieve strategic objectives whilst mnimising civilian casualties. You can argue whether they are trying hard enough but to argue they are the same thing is wrong.
Ukraine kills civilians are they as bad as Hamas?
The strategy must presumably be to illicit a response from Israel so strong it brings in the rest of the arab players into the conflict.
For that to succeed, the terror must indeed be as horrific as possible, to goad Israel into a disproportionate response.
I think you are being naïve if you believe Palestinian civilian casualties are being minimised; siege tactics like cutting off water supplies are war crimes for a reason and there is no military reason to do so.
If you've spent a bit of time online you'll have seen the images Israel is putting out from the atrocities Hamas committed. They're horrific.
Turn on Al Jazeera and you'll see whole blocks of home to hundreds of people just obliterated; most of them were occupied at the time.
Ultimately I don't think it really matters if one is worse than the other; they do their war crimes in different ways, but what is safe to say is a) Hamas strategy to bring the rest of the neighbourhood into the war has not so far succeeded, so where do they go from here and b) Israel is not looking like it has any genuine strategic objective or end point for this.
1 -
A thread from a journalist with senior experience at Reuters in the Palestinian Territories and Jerusalem on the veracity of the casualty numbers in Gaza.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
His twitter does seem rather one sided but yes - of course both sides have an interest in swaying world opinion.
However see how Israel has reacted to the UN today - are the UN now an ally of Hamas? Crimes are being committed on both sides so it's legitimate to use the same kind of terminology for both. Yes Hamas are terrorists and Israel are occupiers and war criminals engaged in a slow process of ethnic cleansing - these are facts but if the BBC used these kind if descriptions it'd get hammered even more.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Not sure picking a fight with the UN because they have dared to question the way Israel are conducting their response to Hamas is going to help anything other than make a few of the more bloodthirsty Israeli politicians feel like they are doing something.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's not new though is it? The UN regularly criticises Israel and then the US vetos any resolution.rjsterry said:Not sure picking a fight with the UN because they have dared to question the way Israel are conducting their response to Hamas is going to help anything other than make a few of the more bloodthirsty Israeli politicians feel like they are doing something.
0 -
For clarity are you saying you approve of the Hamas tactics?rick_chasey said:
Terrorism is a tactic and the terror bit of the word is informative. They do not have the firepower to reasonably fight the Israeli military. It is the only 'attack' they have left. Hamas are hardly sending in the Apache's and flying gen 5 fighters over to precision bomb israeli positions, are they?surrey_commuter said:
One side set out to kill as many civilians as possible in the most barbaric way possible.rick_chasey said:
How do you square that with the body counts on each side?rjsterry said:
I also think that the 'both as bad as each other' narrative and equating Hamas actions with those of the IDF is exactly what Hamas want people to think.
They are not the same thing.
A dead person is a dead person, whether they were blown up by a bomb from an aeroplane whilst in their own bed or shot at a music festival.
The other is trying to achieve strategic objectives whilst mnimising civilian casualties. You can argue whether they are trying hard enough but to argue they are the same thing is wrong.
Ukraine kills civilians are they as bad as Hamas?
The strategy must presumably be to illicit a response from Israel so strong it brings in the rest of the arab players into the conflict.
For that to succeed, the terror must indeed be as horrific as possible, to goad Israel into a disproportionate response.
I think you are being naïve if you believe Palestinian civilian casualties are being minimised; siege tactics like cutting off water supplies are war crimes for a reason and there is no military reason to do so.
If you've spent a bit of time online you'll have seen the images Israel is putting out from the atrocities Hamas committed. They're horrific.
Turn on Al Jazeera and you'll see whole blocks of home to hundreds of people just obliterated; most of them were occupied at the time.
Ultimately I don't think it really matters if one is worse than the other; they do their war crimes in different ways, but what is safe to say is a) Hamas strategy to bring the rest of the neighbourhood into the war has not so far succeeded, so where do they go from here and b) Israel is not looking like it has any genuine strategic objective or end point for this.
Ukraine drops bombs on civilian areas in Russia, is that a war crime and does it put them on a par with Russia?
0 -
Rick Chasey says - " siege tactics like cutting off water supplies are war crimes for a reason and there is no military reason to do so."
It's not easy to define what a war crime is - should the Allies have provided humanitarian aid to the Nazis towards the end of WW2 when it was clear that they were the superior force?
I reckon no.0 -
-
This may come over as a somewhat flippant question. It's not intended as such.
How can warfare be conducted without bombing civilian areas as so much critical infrastructure appears to be located in such areas?
Is the word "indiscriminate" (or similar concepts) in the definition of war crimes somewhere?0 -
Again, not to be flippant, but I think all wars are awful for those on the receiving end. Human nature hasn't really changed much over time, and humanity quickly goes out of the window once hostilities start. The only thing that changes is the nature of the awfulness / inhumanity and the way it is reported.rick_chasey said:…the war was really awful
0 -
It’s about making all reasonable efforts necessary to avoid civilian casualties.wallace_and_gromit said:This may come over as a somewhat flippant question. It's not intended as such.
How can warfare be conducted without bombing civilian areas as so much critical infrastructure appears to be located in such areas?
Is the word "indiscriminate" (or similar concepts) in the definition of war crimes somewhere?
It is not reasonable to cut the water off to an entire town.0 -
I think the scale of suffering of WW2 had never been seen before or since.wallace_and_gromit said:
Again, not to be flippant, but I think all wars are awful for those on the receiving end. Human nature hasn't really changed much over time, and humanity quickly goes out of the window once hostilities start. The only thing that changes is the nature of the awfulness / inhumanity and the way it is reported.rick_chasey said:…the war was really awful
And it is no coincidence the Geneva convention came after it, right?0 -
I think we're in agreement here. I wasn't commenting on whether war crimes had been committed. Just whether bombing civilian areas was necessarily a war crime.rick_chasey said:
It’s about making all reasonable efforts necessary to avoid civilian casualties.wallace_and_gromit said:This may come over as a somewhat flippant question. It's not intended as such.
How can warfare be conducted without bombing civilian areas as so much critical infrastructure appears to be located in such areas?
Is the word "indiscriminate" (or similar concepts) in the definition of war crimes somewhere?
It is not reasonable to cut the water off to an entire town.0 -
I know this is a subjective judgement but from what I've read, some post-WW2 conflicts have been fairly horrific e.g. napalming kids in Vietnam and Lord only knows what in the Balkans in the early-mid 90s. WW2 was certainly the first to be documented and reported (particularly via film) in such a way.rick_chasey said:
I think the scale of suffering of WW2 had never been seen before or since.wallace_and_gromit said:
Again, not to be flippant, but I think all wars are awful for those on the receiving end. Human nature hasn't really changed much over time, and humanity quickly goes out of the window once hostilities start. The only thing that changes is the nature of the awfulness / inhumanity and the way it is reported.rick_chasey said:…the war was really awful
And it is no coincidence the Geneva convention came after it, right?0 -
Sure.wallace_and_gromit said:
I know this is a subjective judgement but from what I've read, some post-WW2 conflicts have been fairly horrific e.g. napalming kids in Vietnam and Lord only knows what in the Balkans in the early-mid 90s. WW2 was certainly the first to be documented and reported (particularly via film) in such a way.rick_chasey said:
I think the scale of suffering of WW2 had never been seen before or since.wallace_and_gromit said:
Again, not to be flippant, but I think all wars are awful for those on the receiving end. Human nature hasn't really changed much over time, and humanity quickly goes out of the window once hostilities start. The only thing that changes is the nature of the awfulness / inhumanity and the way it is reported.rick_chasey said:…the war was really awful
And it is no coincidence the Geneva convention came after it, right?
Look I think the development of 'war crimes' and human rights is a good development and I think it's a good thing to hold everyone accountable to those rules.
There are lots of things humans have done since forever that we abhore, so I while you can empathise with the temptation, we all should do better.0 -
The English Civil War killed an estimated 200,000 at a time when the population was about 5 million. Of course the 1949 Convention was precipitated by WW2, but there are three previous Geneva Conventions dating back to the 1860s.rick_chasey said:
I think the scale of suffering of WW2 had never been seen before or since.wallace_and_gromit said:
Again, not to be flippant, but I think all wars are awful for those on the receiving end. Human nature hasn't really changed much over time, and humanity quickly goes out of the window once hostilities start. The only thing that changes is the nature of the awfulness / inhumanity and the way it is reported.rick_chasey said:…the war was really awful
And it is no coincidence the Geneva convention came after it, right?
There has been some discussion of what the GC says/doesn't say about siege and other Israeli tactics in the HoL.
Gaza is almost entirely urban so almost any military action will have a significant effect on civilians. Hamas are clearly exploiting that.
As to Israel's goal that is clearly the elimination or severe degradation of Hamas, a foreign military force that is attacking its citizens. Hamas's objective is to eliminate the state of Israel and the Jewish population. It's not a subtle distinction.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It is not a foreign military force. Gaza is part of Israel - they control its borders.rjsterry said:
The English Civil War killed an estimated 200,000 at a time when the population was about 5 million. Of course the 1949 Convention was precipitated by WW2, but there are three previous Geneva Conventions dating back to the 1860s.rick_chasey said:
I think the scale of suffering of WW2 had never been seen before or since.wallace_and_gromit said:
Again, not to be flippant, but I think all wars are awful for those on the receiving end. Human nature hasn't really changed much over time, and humanity quickly goes out of the window once hostilities start. The only thing that changes is the nature of the awfulness / inhumanity and the way it is reported.rick_chasey said:…the war was really awful
And it is no coincidence the Geneva convention came after it, right?
There has been some discussion of what the GC says/doesn't say about siege and other Israeli tactics in the HoL.
Gaza is almost entirely urban so almost any military action will have a significant effect on civilians. Hamas are clearly exploiting that.
As to Israel's goal that is clearly the elimination or severe degradation of Hamas, a foreign military force that is attacking its citizens. Hamas's objective is to eliminate the state of Israel and the Jewish population. It's not a subtle distinction.
As you know, Hamas has changed its charter. In contrast, plenty in the Israeli government have not changed their views on the subject.1 -
My grandfather told me that bombing is an act of cowardice and that anyone who has been bombed would not do it to someone else.wallace_and_gromit said:This may come over as a somewhat flippant question. It's not intended as such.
How can warfare be conducted without bombing civilian areas as so much critical infrastructure appears to be located in such areas?
Is the word "indiscriminate" (or similar concepts) in the definition of war crimes somewhere?0 -
The approach that Israel is taking is losing them much support with people worldwide than if they were making more genuine efforts to minimise the impact on civilians. Most people are rightly appalled at the Hammas terrorist action, but there seems to be little attention on who are the decision makers behind Hammas who must have known Israel would respond in this type of manner?0
-
I don't think anyone thinks that sending the military into gaza solves that in the medium or long term. After all, what was the rationale for pulling troops out of gaza in 2005?rjsterry said:
As to Israel's goal that is clearly the elimination or severe degradation of Hamas, a foreign military force that is attacking its citizens. Hamas's objective is to eliminate the state of Israel and the Jewish population. It's not a subtle distinction.
Demanding all civilians leave the strip and then sending in the army sounds an awful lot like an attempt to just remove all Palestinians from the strip. "if you don't leave, we will assume you are part of hamas" is the inference.
0 -
Not sure the fatality stats relating to bomber crews would necessarily support the assertion re cowardice. But that's just a feature of modern warfare I think - weapons are much more powerful and can be deployed remotely more easily than in the days when warfare was hand-to-hand combat on battlefields and was considered an honourable thing to do, particular against the French!TheBigBean said:
My grandfather told me that bombing is an act of cowardice and that anyone who has been bombed would not do it to someone else.wallace_and_gromit said:This may come over as a somewhat flippant question. It's not intended as such.
How can warfare be conducted without bombing civilian areas as so much critical infrastructure appears to be located in such areas?
Is the word "indiscriminate" (or similar concepts) in the definition of war crimes somewhere?0 -
The cowardice is someone sitting in a comfortable office in the US/UK and giving the order for a bit of bombing. This refers to the modern variation which comes with minimal risk.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure the fatality stats relating to bomber crews would necessarily support the assertion re cowardice. But that's just a feature of modern warfare I think - weapons are much more powerful and can be deployed remotely more easily than in the days when warfare was hand-to-hand combat on battlefields and was considered an honourable thing to do, particular against the French!TheBigBean said:
My grandfather told me that bombing is an act of cowardice and that anyone who has been bombed would not do it to someone else.wallace_and_gromit said:This may come over as a somewhat flippant question. It's not intended as such.
How can warfare be conducted without bombing civilian areas as so much critical infrastructure appears to be located in such areas?
Is the word "indiscriminate" (or similar concepts) in the definition of war crimes somewhere?0 -
There does not seem to be much dissent even in the Arab world that Hamas are a problem. Israel's calculation on how to deal with the situation right now is based on three thingsvincesummerskRoxcBTr said:The approach that Israel is taking is losing them much support with people worldwide than if they were making more genuine efforts to minimise the impact on civilians. Most people are rightly appalled at the Hammas terrorist action, but there seems to be little attention on who are the decision makers behind Hammas who must have known Israel would respond in this type of manner?
Domestic politics.
US support.
Broadening the conflict.
Domestic politics would seem to favour almost anything in Gaza.
Therefore, it seems to be that Israel will do anything to the point of inducing conflict on other borders or risking US support.0
