Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
I'm intrigued that no country seems to have rescued its citizens from Gaza.0
-
Which authorities do you deal with if your country doesn't recognise it as a state?TheBigBean said:I'm intrigued that no country seems to have rescued its citizens from Gaza.
0 -
They normally just notify (not ask) whoever and explain the consequences. So in this case, Hamas, Israel and Egypt.rick_chasey said:
Which authorities do you deal with if your country doesn't recognise it as a state?TheBigBean said:I'm intrigued that no country seems to have rescued its citizens from Gaza.
0 -
You think the UK foreign office has connections into Hamas? Yikes. They've designated a terrorist organisation.TheBigBean said:
They normally just notify (not ask) whoever and explain the consequences. So in this case, Hamas, Israel and Egypt.rick_chasey said:
Which authorities do you deal with if your country doesn't recognise it as a state?TheBigBean said:I'm intrigued that no country seems to have rescued its citizens from Gaza.
0 -
They might need to go through Qatar, but yes, they probably know who to phone.rick_chasey said:
You think the UK foreign office has connections into Hamas? Yikes. They've designated a terrorist organisation.TheBigBean said:
They normally just notify (not ask) whoever and explain the consequences. So in this case, Hamas, Israel and Egypt.rick_chasey said:
Which authorities do you deal with if your country doesn't recognise it as a state?TheBigBean said:I'm intrigued that no country seems to have rescued its citizens from Gaza.
0 -
mm I'd be very surprised if Hamas play ball with British authorities. Caring about foreign civilians is not remotely on their radar let alone a nation who publicly backs Israel.0
-
I'm not sure that is accurate. In any case, I'm not sure it really matters whether Hamas are considered foreign or not.TheBigBean said:
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.
It's pretty clear from their actions what value Hamas place on their charter.
Yes, some people in Israel would be happy to erase Gaza. That is not their stated foreign policy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's status, along with the West Bank, as part of Israel matters, because it places obligations on Israel as an occupying power. Disputing this is another tedious bit of Israeli PR. Along with banging on about Hamas's charter and using it as an excuse to avoid negotiations.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure that is accurate. In any case, I'm not sure it really matters whether Hamas are considered foreign or not.TheBigBean said:
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.
It's pretty clear from their actions what value Hamas place on their charter.
Yes, some people in Israel would be happy to erase Gaza. That is not their stated foreign policy.0 -
I have doubts about the ability to completely eliminate Hamas and even if they did, what's to stop another ISIS stepping into the empty shoes. That said I think stopping their citizens from being murdered in the short term would be a good start from their point of view.rick_chasey said:
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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Of course the occupation matters in the broader context. I don't think it matters whether Hamas are labelled as a foreign (to Israel) military force or 'rebels'.TheBigBean said:
It's status, along with the West Bank, as part of Israel matters, because it places obligations on Israel as an occupying power. Disputing this is another tedious bit of Israeli PR. Along with banging on about Hamas's charter and using it as an excuse to avoid negotiations.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure that is accurate. In any case, I'm not sure it really matters whether Hamas are considered foreign or not.TheBigBean said:
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.
It's pretty clear from their actions what value Hamas place on their charter.
Yes, some people in Israel would be happy to erase Gaza. That is not their stated foreign policy.
I don't think you need to consider anything more than their actions to judge Hamas's intent.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Do Israel's actions imply an enthusiasm for a Palestinian existence?rjsterry said:
Of course the occupation matters in the broader context. I don't think it matters whether Hamas are labelled as a foreign (to Israel) military force or 'rebels'.TheBigBean said:
It's status, along with the West Bank, as part of Israel matters, because it places obligations on Israel as an occupying power. Disputing this is another tedious bit of Israeli PR. Along with banging on about Hamas's charter and using it as an excuse to avoid negotiations.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure that is accurate. In any case, I'm not sure it really matters whether Hamas are considered foreign or not.TheBigBean said:
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.
It's pretty clear from their actions what value Hamas place on their charter.
Yes, some people in Israel would be happy to erase Gaza. That is not their stated foreign policy.
I don't think you need to consider anything more than their actions to judge Hamas's intent.
Also, the reason I pulled you up on use of foreign, is that on this subject, you seem to trot out a lot of Israeli PR.
0 -
Enthusiasm, no. An (insufficient) attempt to give some consideration to the matter, I think so. They can and should do much better.TheBigBean said:
Do Israel's actions imply an enthusiasm for a Palestinian existence?rjsterry said:
Of course the occupation matters in the broader context. I don't think it matters whether Hamas are labelled as a foreign (to Israel) military force or 'rebels'.TheBigBean said:
It's status, along with the West Bank, as part of Israel matters, because it places obligations on Israel as an occupying power. Disputing this is another tedious bit of Israeli PR. Along with banging on about Hamas's charter and using it as an excuse to avoid negotiations.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure that is accurate. In any case, I'm not sure it really matters whether Hamas are considered foreign or not.TheBigBean said:
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.
It's pretty clear from their actions what value Hamas place on their charter.
Yes, some people in Israel would be happy to erase Gaza. That is not their stated foreign policy.
I don't think you need to consider anything more than their actions to judge Hamas's intent.
Also, the reason I pulled you up on use of foreign, is that on this subject, you seem to trot out a lot of Israeli PR.
Hamas appear to just not give a f*** about anyone.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I know you are aware of it, but I can't reconcile "An (insufficient) attempt to give some consideration to the matter" with the murders, beatings and evictions in the West Bank as well as the blocking of any attempt to gain recognition for Palestine (e.g. all the UN stuff).rjsterry said:
Enthusiasm, no. An (insufficient) attempt to give some consideration to the matter, I think so. They can and should do much better.TheBigBean said:
Do Israel's actions imply an enthusiasm for a Palestinian existence?rjsterry said:
Of course the occupation matters in the broader context. I don't think it matters whether Hamas are labelled as a foreign (to Israel) military force or 'rebels'.TheBigBean said:
It's status, along with the West Bank, as part of Israel matters, because it places obligations on Israel as an occupying power. Disputing this is another tedious bit of Israeli PR. Along with banging on about Hamas's charter and using it as an excuse to avoid negotiations.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure that is accurate. In any case, I'm not sure it really matters whether Hamas are considered foreign or not.TheBigBean said:
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.
It's pretty clear from their actions what value Hamas place on their charter.
Yes, some people in Israel would be happy to erase Gaza. That is not their stated foreign policy.
I don't think you need to consider anything more than their actions to judge Hamas's intent.
Also, the reason I pulled you up on use of foreign, is that on this subject, you seem to trot out a lot of Israeli PR.
Hamas appear to just not give a f*** about anyone.
On Hamas, I think they were elected because they spent money on healthcare and schools rather than siphoning off money to their own personal accounts as the Palestinian authority leaders had done before. That was a long time ago, but in the end it doesn't matter. You can only negotiate with the people in charge and that's Hamas. Just as the UK and Ireland needed to deal with the IRA
0 -
An article about the recordes death figures.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministryA UN official who declined to be publicly identified said his agency had used and checked Gaza health ministry data for years. “I have seen nothing that says to me they are making the numbers up. We looked at some of the Israeli bombings and the numbers of deaths the ministry is claiming for a particular attack are broadly in line with what we have seen in previous wars.”
He said the reason for the higher overall casualty figures was that the attacks were “much bigger than anything we’ve seen in previous wars. It’s not that they’re inflating the numbers.”0 -
The negotiation with the IRA involved two parties that were open to negotiation. I don't see that in Hamas, nor sadly with someone like Netanyahu. He can lose an election. Hamas aren't interested in there being other parties let alone elections.TheBigBean said:
I know you are aware of it, but I can't reconcile "An (insufficient) attempt to give some consideration to the matter" with the murders, beatings and evictions in the West Bank as well as the blocking of any attempt to gain recognition for Palestine (e.g. all the UN stuff).rjsterry said:
Enthusiasm, no. An (insufficient) attempt to give some consideration to the matter, I think so. They can and should do much better.TheBigBean said:
Do Israel's actions imply an enthusiasm for a Palestinian existence?rjsterry said:
Of course the occupation matters in the broader context. I don't think it matters whether Hamas are labelled as a foreign (to Israel) military force or 'rebels'.TheBigBean said:
It's status, along with the West Bank, as part of Israel matters, because it places obligations on Israel as an occupying power. Disputing this is another tedious bit of Israeli PR. Along with banging on about Hamas's charter and using it as an excuse to avoid negotiations.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure that is accurate. In any case, I'm not sure it really matters whether Hamas are considered foreign or not.TheBigBean said:
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.
It's pretty clear from their actions what value Hamas place on their charter.
Yes, some people in Israel would be happy to erase Gaza. That is not their stated foreign policy.
I don't think you need to consider anything more than their actions to judge Hamas's intent.
Also, the reason I pulled you up on use of foreign, is that on this subject, you seem to trot out a lot of Israeli PR.
Hamas appear to just not give a f*** about anyone.
On Hamas, I think they were elected because they spent money on healthcare and schools rather than siphoning off money to their own personal accounts as the Palestinian authority leaders had done before. That was a long time ago, but in the end it doesn't matter. You can only negotiate with the people in charge and that's Hamas. Just as the UK and Ireland needed to deal with the IRA1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GMToday's discussion about the news.NegativeTomorrow's discussion about the news.NegativeYesterday's discussion about the news.Negative
There is good news in the World, it's just it doesn't involve the mainstream media.
0 -
In England’s North Yorkshire, locals opposed a fracking project vigorously enough to get the whole thing canceled, but the almost 2-mile deep borehole had already been made.https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/after-fracking-is-halted-the-sites-drill-hole-is-now-a-source-of-clean-geothermal-energy/
Rather than simply letting it lie as an ugly testament to the picket line, Third Energy converted it into a geothermal heating station prototype that could heat 300 homes in the village of Kirby Misperton if commercially developed.
Every 3,000 feet or so one drills down into the Earth, the rock warms by 54°F or thereabouts. At 2 miles, the rock is very hot, and Third Energy can pump water to those depths to heat it up naturally before drawing it back up to the surface and using it to power home radiators and water heaters.2 -
Hasn't not reading the news been shown to increase happiness?1
-
-
Has the Cake Stop kangaroo court not already found him guilty?First.Aspect said:
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Law of averages.Stevo_666 said:0 -
It’s still utterly, one of the greatest songs ever recorded.focuszing723 said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GMToday's discussion about the news.NegativeTomorrow's discussion about the news.NegativeYesterday's discussion about the news.Negative
There is good news in the World, it's just it doesn't involve the mainstream media.
If it was released today it would still sound groundbreaking, the fact it was recorded nearly sixty years ago, 4 years after they recorded Love Me Do is astonishing.
Sure the new tune will be tosh but here’s hoping0 -
-
It's trendy.rick_chasey said:Question time audience is pretty pro palestine
0 -
One summer (pre-internet) I went months without buying a newspaper or watching TV news. I tried my best to ignore radio news too. I can confirm that ignorance is indeed bliss.TheBigBean said:Hasn't not reading the news been shown to increase happiness?
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.1 -
Noted, Skippy.First.Aspect said:
Law of averages.Stevo_666 said:
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.
A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Joking aside, I know absolutely nothing about the circumstances other than the salacious headlines. There, though, two charges - drug possession (which you would imagine depends very much on whether or not there were drugs, and so somewhat cut and dried one way or the other) and rape. Upon which there probably will not be any comment for some time, quite rightly.Stevo_666 said:
Noted, Skippy.First.Aspect said:
Law of averages.Stevo_666 said:
0 -
The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.DeVlaeminck said:The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.
A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.
0 -
One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.TheBigBean said:
The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.DeVlaeminck said:The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.
A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.
They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha0
