Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
That's not what he's saying. I think he means that human shields would have no effect whatsoever if bombs weren't usedrick_chasey said:
Sorry what? The military can't use bombs against their enemy because they use human shields?pblakeney said:
The human shields wouldn't be an issue if bombs weren't used.rick_chasey said:
So my argument is that the tactics Hamas use prevent IDF from ever taking the "moral high ground" and putting civilians in IDF's harm's way is literally part of their tactics, so the idea that the IDF are fully responsible for that is, to me, nonsense.pblakeney said:
Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.
As SC says, when the bombs come, Hamas are using the bomb shelters, they're not lending them out to the civilians. It should be the other way around.
That's why they're so hot on reporting every civilian death.Wilier Izoard XP0 -
they stopped hammering Hamas and look what happened.laurentian said:
. . . which side is closer to "wiping the other out"?surrey_commuter said:
how can they be two sides of the same coin when one side has a stated aim of wiping the other out?pblakeney said:
Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.
Why does nobody see a solution that started with Hamas ending their pledge to wipe Israel off the map?0 -
I try and keep off the Hamas stuff as it makes me too angry but has your attitude hardened in the last 6 weeks?rick_chasey said:
Sorry what? The military can't use bombs against their enemy because they use human shields?pblakeney said:
The human shields wouldn't be an issue if bombs weren't used.rick_chasey said:
So my argument is that the tactics Hamas use prevent IDF from ever taking the "moral high ground" and putting civilians in IDF's harm's way is literally part of their tactics, so the idea that the IDF are fully responsible for that is, to me, nonsense.pblakeney said:
Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.
As SC says, when the bombs come, Hamas are using the bomb shelters, they're not lending them out to the civilians. It should be the other way around.
That's why they're so hot on reporting every civilian death.0 -
So how do you propose fighting an enemy without using bombs?laurentian said:
That's not what he's saying. I think he means that human shields would have no effect whatsoever if bombs weren't usedrick_chasey said:
Sorry what? The military can't use bombs against their enemy because they use human shields?pblakeney said:
The human shields wouldn't be an issue if bombs weren't used.rick_chasey said:
So my argument is that the tactics Hamas use prevent IDF from ever taking the "moral high ground" and putting civilians in IDF's harm's way is literally part of their tactics, so the idea that the IDF are fully responsible for that is, to me, nonsense.pblakeney said:
Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.
As SC says, when the bombs come, Hamas are using the bomb shelters, they're not lending them out to the civilians. It should be the other way around.
That's why they're so hot on reporting every civilian death.
We can all agree waging war in gaza is not a sensible long term strategy and does not suit anyone's interests. Lots of people die in wars. That's often why we don't want them. We also I think all agree that the war does not solve the problem Israel is trying to solve.
In the context of a war however, how do you fight a hidden enemy?!0 -
In the meantime the families of the Israeli hostages are asking their government to stop bombing and start negotiating.0
-
Well yes, their loved ones are being used by Hamas as a....wait for it....human shield.secretsqirrel said:In the meantime the families of the Israeli hostages are asking their government to stop bombing and start negotiating.
0 -
If only there were some way to not keep bombing themrick_chasey said:
Well yes, their loved ones are being used by Hamas as a....wait for it....human shield.secretsqirrel said:In the meantime the families of the Israeli hostages are asking their government to stop bombing and start negotiating.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
The point is that Hamas could surround themselves with any number of human shields but this would be completely pointless if bombs weren't used by Israel. The human shields are a symptom of the bombing.rick_chasey said:
So how do you propose fighting an enemy without using bombs?laurentian said:
That's not what he's saying. I think he means that human shields would have no effect whatsoever if bombs weren't usedrick_chasey said:
Sorry what? The military can't use bombs against their enemy because they use human shields?pblakeney said:
The human shields wouldn't be an issue if bombs weren't used.rick_chasey said:
So my argument is that the tactics Hamas use prevent IDF from ever taking the "moral high ground" and putting civilians in IDF's harm's way is literally part of their tactics, so the idea that the IDF are fully responsible for that is, to me, nonsense.pblakeney said:
Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.
As SC says, when the bombs come, Hamas are using the bomb shelters, they're not lending them out to the civilians. It should be the other way around.
That's why they're so hot on reporting every civilian death.
We can all agree waging war in gaza is not a sensible long term strategy and does not suit anyone's interests. Lots of people die in wars. That's often why we don't want them. We also I think all agree that the war does not solve the problem Israel is trying to solve.
In the context of a war however, how do you fight a hidden enemy?!
In a hostage situation, it is not usual practice to blast the f*&k out of a building to ensure the demise of the hostage taker.Wilier Izoard XP0 -
How have Israel blundered? Israel does not really care about world opinion and no one will be prosecuted by the ICC. Their primary goal is to demonstrate military strength to all their neighbours and deliver punishment to Gaza.rjsterry said:To paraphrase SC's argument on Covid, if a bunch of blokes on a cycling forum can spot that that is the trap, why have Israel blundered into it?
Of course if they lost US support and funding, and the world brought in a load of sanctions, they might think it was a mistake in 20 years or so, but that is very unlikely to happen, so minimal risk.
0 -
But it's a war? It's not rainbow six.laurentian said:
The point is that Hamas could surround themselves with any number of human shields but this would be completely pointless if bombs weren't used by Israel. The human shields are a symptom of the bombing.rick_chasey said:
So how do you propose fighting an enemy without using bombs?laurentian said:
That's not what he's saying. I think he means that human shields would have no effect whatsoever if bombs weren't usedrick_chasey said:
Sorry what? The military can't use bombs against their enemy because they use human shields?pblakeney said:
The human shields wouldn't be an issue if bombs weren't used.rick_chasey said:
So my argument is that the tactics Hamas use prevent IDF from ever taking the "moral high ground" and putting civilians in IDF's harm's way is literally part of their tactics, so the idea that the IDF are fully responsible for that is, to me, nonsense.pblakeney said:
Two sides of the same coin as things stand. Both sides are wrong.surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
Israel had the opportunity to keep the moral high ground but decided to forgo it.
As SC says, when the bombs come, Hamas are using the bomb shelters, they're not lending them out to the civilians. It should be the other way around.
That's why they're so hot on reporting every civilian death.
We can all agree waging war in gaza is not a sensible long term strategy and does not suit anyone's interests. Lots of people die in wars. That's often why we don't want them. We also I think all agree that the war does not solve the problem Israel is trying to solve.
In the context of a war however, how do you fight a hidden enemy?!
In a hostage situation, it is not usual practice to blast the f*&k out of a building to ensure the demise of the hostage taker.
I'll stop as we're not getting anywhere. Everyone's got an opinion on how not to wage the war but they can't come up with an effective alternative. I don't think people are able to split the strategy and the tactics.
You can't defeat hamas without bombs. They are an organised military force.
Perhaps everyone here assumes the primary objective ought to be as few dead as possible. It's a war, the primary objective is to defeat the enemy, and the secondary objective is to do it with as few deaths as possible.0 -
I'm not sure Israelis have quite such a Millwall POV, but regardless, this is not a thing that can be won as various precursors have shown.TheBigBean said:
How have Israel blundered? Israel does not really care about world opinion and no one will be prosecuted by the ICC. Their primary goal is to demonstrate military strength to all their neighbours and deliver punishment to Gaza.rjsterry said:To paraphrase SC's argument on Covid, if a bunch of blokes on a cycling forum can spot that that is the trap, why have Israel blundered into it?
Of course if they lost US support and funding, and the world brought in a load of sanctions, they might think it was a mistake in 20 years or so, but that is very unlikely to happen, so minimal risk.
However much Israel flatten Gaza, the Hamas leadership aren't even there and the occupation is doing a great job of recruiting replacement manpower. Equally Hamas can't 'win' either.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Is there any evidence/information on how many hostages will have been killed in the 'bomb at all costs' Israel strategy?secretsqirrel said:In the meantime the families of the Israeli hostages are asking their government to stop bombing and start negotiating.
2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner0 -
Assuming your comment is tongue in cheek it would probably be a good exercise to contemplate what a "bomb at all costs" Israeli strategy would look like as it would give us an idea of the restraint (if any) they are showingcarbonclem said:
Is there any evidence/information on how many hostages will have been killed in the 'bomb at all costs' Israel strategy?secretsqirrel said:In the meantime the families of the Israeli hostages are asking their government to stop bombing and start negotiating.
I will start with dropping bunker busters directly on the hospital0 -
It is, kinda. But also I do wonder about it. I'm not sure it gets mentioned. They must have killed a load?surrey_commuter said:
Assuming your comment is tongue in cheekcarbonclem said:
Is there any evidence/information on how many hostages will have been killed in the 'bomb at all costs' Israel strategy?secretsqirrel said:In the meantime the families of the Israeli hostages are asking their government to stop bombing and start negotiating.
2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner0 -
But if they had used the good stuff to try and penetrate the command bunker under the hospital then the whole lot would have been flattenedcarbonclem said:
It is, kinda. But also I do wonder about it. I'm not sure it gets mentioned. They must have killed a load?surrey_commuter said:
Assuming your comment is tongue in cheekcarbonclem said:
Is there any evidence/information on how many hostages will have been killed in the 'bomb at all costs' Israel strategy?secretsqirrel said:In the meantime the families of the Israeli hostages are asking their government to stop bombing and start negotiating.
0 -
When it comes to disproportionate retaliation and collective punishment the IDF really are the the best in the business.0
-
Child prisoner swaps are not a good look for anyone.0
-
surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
I'm not disputing that Hamas are murderous thugs with despicable aims.
But I am asking where does a 'proportionate response' go over the line (and, by implication, when does 'defending themselves' turn into an offensive mission), without any regard to innocent people. I'm sure you'll be aware of some Israeli cabinet members proclaiming that no Gaza Palestinians are innocent.
https://thewire.in/world/northern-gaza-israel-palestine-conflictIsrael’s president Isaac Herzog claimed in a press conference that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, while thousands of Palestinians struggled to flee northern Gaza after Israel’s military told some 1.1 million of them to evacuate south ahead of an anticipated military operation.
“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday, October 13
My suspicion is that Netanyahu correctly assessed that a functioning Hamas would eventually do what they did, and that would give the pretext for an 'offensive defence' through which Gaza could be turned into a hellscape for Palenstinians, with the eventual aim of Israel annexing it.Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there was plenty of blame to go around — he described the attack as a collective failing — but put the courtship of Hamas squarely on Netanyahu.
“In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas,” he told POLITICO. “Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-border-troops-women-hamas-warnings-war-october-7-benjamin-netanyahu
I think that the notion of 'an Israeli', as if they are, as one, all supporting Netanyahu and the Gaza retaliation, isn't representing the breadth of opinion there. Sure, some will be offended, but being offended doesn't afford moral superiority, any more than it does to UK racists who are 'offended' by foreigners coming over in boats.0 -
You've gone a bit conspiracy theorist there. No politician in Israel wanted the Hamas attacks under any circumstances. Netanyahu was trying divide and rule - not to provoke a successful Hamas attack, but to prevent meaningful opposition in the west bank.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
I'm not disputing that Hamas are murderous thugs with despicable aims.
But I am asking where does a 'proportionate response' go over the line (and, by implication, when does 'defending themselves' turn into an offensive mission), without any regard to innocent people. I'm sure you'll be aware of some Israeli cabinet members proclaiming that no Gaza Palestinians are innocent.
https://thewire.in/world/northern-gaza-israel-palestine-conflictIsrael’s president Isaac Herzog claimed in a press conference that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, while thousands of Palestinians struggled to flee northern Gaza after Israel’s military told some 1.1 million of them to evacuate south ahead of an anticipated military operation.
“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday, October 13
My suspicion is that Netanyahu correctly assessed that a functioning Hamas would eventually do what they did, and that would give the pretext for an 'offensive defence' through which Gaza could be turned into a hellscape for Palenstinians, with the eventual aim of Israel annexing it.Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there was plenty of blame to go around — he described the attack as a collective failing — but put the courtship of Hamas squarely on Netanyahu.
“In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas,” he told POLITICO. “Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-border-troops-women-hamas-warnings-war-october-7-benjamin-netanyahu
I think that the notion of 'an Israeli', as if they are, as one, all supporting Netanyahu and the Gaza retaliation, isn't representing the breadth of opinion there. Sure, some will be offended, but being offended doesn't afford moral superiority, any more than it does to UK racists who are 'offended' by foreigners coming over in boats.
Israel has no interest in Gaza (nor does Egypt).
0 -
TheBigBean said:
You've gone a bit conspiracy theorist there. No politician in Israel wanted the Hamas attacks under any circumstances. Netanyahu was trying divide and rule - not to provoke a successful Hamas attack, but to prevent meaningful opposition in the west bank.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
I'm not disputing that Hamas are murderous thugs with despicable aims.
But I am asking where does a 'proportionate response' go over the line (and, by implication, when does 'defending themselves' turn into an offensive mission), without any regard to innocent people. I'm sure you'll be aware of some Israeli cabinet members proclaiming that no Gaza Palestinians are innocent.
https://thewire.in/world/northern-gaza-israel-palestine-conflictIsrael’s president Isaac Herzog claimed in a press conference that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, while thousands of Palestinians struggled to flee northern Gaza after Israel’s military told some 1.1 million of them to evacuate south ahead of an anticipated military operation.
“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday, October 13
My suspicion is that Netanyahu correctly assessed that a functioning Hamas would eventually do what they did, and that would give the pretext for an 'offensive defence' through which Gaza could be turned into a hellscape for Palenstinians, with the eventual aim of Israel annexing it.Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there was plenty of blame to go around — he described the attack as a collective failing — but put the courtship of Hamas squarely on Netanyahu.
“In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas,” he told POLITICO. “Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-border-troops-women-hamas-warnings-war-october-7-benjamin-netanyahu
I think that the notion of 'an Israeli', as if they are, as one, all supporting Netanyahu and the Gaza retaliation, isn't representing the breadth of opinion there. Sure, some will be offended, but being offended doesn't afford moral superiority, any more than it does to UK racists who are 'offended' by foreigners coming over in boats.
Israel has no interest in Gaza (nor does Egypt).
Fair comment, but enabling Hamas when they are known for their barbarity isn't a neutral action. I think there are plenty of Israelis who dont think that Netanyahu is acting in Israel's interest, only his own.
I'm assuming I'm allowed to criticise Netanyahu.0 -
Obviously not a government source, but a 'published opinion':
https://www.israelhayom.com/2023/10/17/gaza-the-case-for-annexation/This is just one of many reasons why Israel must crush Hamas and make sure that it never has the ability to threaten us ever again. But after we accomplish this goal, what will become of Gaza and its civilian population? My hope is that the enemy population residing there now will be expelled and that the Strip will be annexed and repopulated by Israel. Granted, this objective may seem cruel to the Palestinian expellees, but there is just no other alternative if Gaza is to be free of terrorists that can threaten us.
Pollard is a convicted Israeli spy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
An Israeli government minister talks of 'decreasing' Gaza territory:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/18/israel-decrease-gaza-strip-territory-eliminate-hamas/Israel will shrink the Gaza Strip, the country’s foreign minister has said, raising fears parts of the territory will be annexed or reoccupied at the end of the war with Hamas.
Speaking to Israel’s Army Radio on Wednesday, Eli Cohen vowed to eliminate Hamas from Gaza and then predicted a “decrease” in Gazan territory.
“At the end of this war, not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also decrease,” he said.
It was unclear whether Mr Cohen meant that a buffer zone would be placed around the Hamas-controlled enclave or that Israel intended to absorb parts of the densely populated territory of 2.3 million people completely into its territory.0 -
He's a f***ing idiot if he thinks expelling Gazans will make Israel safe.briantrumpet said:Obviously not a government source, but a 'published opinion':
https://www.israelhayom.com/2023/10/17/gaza-the-case-for-annexation/This is just one of many reasons why Israel must crush Hamas and make sure that it never has the ability to threaten us ever again. But after we accomplish this goal, what will become of Gaza and its civilian population? My hope is that the enemy population residing there now will be expelled and that the Strip will be annexed and repopulated by Israel. Granted, this objective may seem cruel to the Palestinian expellees, but there is just no other alternative if Gaza is to be free of terrorists that can threaten us.
Pollard is a convicted Israeli spy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
An Israeli government minister talks of 'decreasing' Gaza territory:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/18/israel-decrease-gaza-strip-territory-eliminate-hamas/Israel will shrink the Gaza Strip, the country’s foreign minister has said, raising fears parts of the territory will be annexed or reoccupied at the end of the war with Hamas.
Speaking to Israel’s Army Radio on Wednesday, Eli Cohen vowed to eliminate Hamas from Gaza and then predicted a “decrease” in Gazan territory.
“At the end of this war, not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also decrease,” he said.
It was unclear whether Mr Cohen meant that a buffer zone would be placed around the Hamas-controlled enclave or that Israel intended to absorb parts of the densely populated territory of 2.3 million people completely into its territory.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
He's a f***ing idiot if he thinks expelling Gazans will make Israel safe.briantrumpet said:Obviously not a government source, but a 'published opinion':
https://www.israelhayom.com/2023/10/17/gaza-the-case-for-annexation/This is just one of many reasons why Israel must crush Hamas and make sure that it never has the ability to threaten us ever again. But after we accomplish this goal, what will become of Gaza and its civilian population? My hope is that the enemy population residing there now will be expelled and that the Strip will be annexed and repopulated by Israel. Granted, this objective may seem cruel to the Palestinian expellees, but there is just no other alternative if Gaza is to be free of terrorists that can threaten us.
Pollard is a convicted Israeli spy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
An Israeli government minister talks of 'decreasing' Gaza territory:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/18/israel-decrease-gaza-strip-territory-eliminate-hamas/Israel will shrink the Gaza Strip, the country’s foreign minister has said, raising fears parts of the territory will be annexed or reoccupied at the end of the war with Hamas.
Speaking to Israel’s Army Radio on Wednesday, Eli Cohen vowed to eliminate Hamas from Gaza and then predicted a “decrease” in Gazan territory.
“At the end of this war, not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also decrease,” he said.
It was unclear whether Mr Cohen meant that a buffer zone would be placed around the Hamas-controlled enclave or that Israel intended to absorb parts of the densely populated territory of 2.3 million people completely into its territory.
The world is full of f***ing idiots. Some of them are elected politicians.0 -
The paper that opinion was published in is Israel Hayom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_HayomDistributed for free around Israel, it is the country's most widely distributed newspaper. Owned by the family of Sheldon Adelson, a personal friend and benefactor of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel Hayom has often been criticized for portraying Netanyahu in an overly positive light. In turn, Netanyahu has been accused of attempting to benefit Adelson's investments.
I must admit that I was not expecting Netanyahu's name to crop up there so prominently, as I was just wanting to see how disreputable the paper was, and if it carried any weight at all.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
No doubt it's an aim but I thought it's no longer their stated aim - wasn't it part of their founding charter which they've amended?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
It's hard not to criticise Netanyahu.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You've gone a bit conspiracy theorist there. No politician in Israel wanted the Hamas attacks under any circumstances. Netanyahu was trying divide and rule - not to provoke a successful Hamas attack, but to prevent meaningful opposition in the west bank.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
I'm not disputing that Hamas are murderous thugs with despicable aims.
But I am asking where does a 'proportionate response' go over the line (and, by implication, when does 'defending themselves' turn into an offensive mission), without any regard to innocent people. I'm sure you'll be aware of some Israeli cabinet members proclaiming that no Gaza Palestinians are innocent.
https://thewire.in/world/northern-gaza-israel-palestine-conflictIsrael’s president Isaac Herzog claimed in a press conference that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, while thousands of Palestinians struggled to flee northern Gaza after Israel’s military told some 1.1 million of them to evacuate south ahead of an anticipated military operation.
“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday, October 13
My suspicion is that Netanyahu correctly assessed that a functioning Hamas would eventually do what they did, and that would give the pretext for an 'offensive defence' through which Gaza could be turned into a hellscape for Palenstinians, with the eventual aim of Israel annexing it.Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there was plenty of blame to go around — he described the attack as a collective failing — but put the courtship of Hamas squarely on Netanyahu.
“In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas,” he told POLITICO. “Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-border-troops-women-hamas-warnings-war-october-7-benjamin-netanyahu
I think that the notion of 'an Israeli', as if they are, as one, all supporting Netanyahu and the Gaza retaliation, isn't representing the breadth of opinion there. Sure, some will be offended, but being offended doesn't afford moral superiority, any more than it does to UK racists who are 'offended' by foreigners coming over in boats.
Israel has no interest in Gaza (nor does Egypt).
Fair comment, but enabling Hamas when they are known for their barbarity isn't a neutral action. I think there are plenty of Israelis who dont think that Netanyahu is acting in Israel's interest, only his own.
I'm assuming I'm allowed to criticise Netanyahu.0 -
TheBigBean said:
It's hard not to criticise Netanyahu.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
You've gone a bit conspiracy theorist there. No politician in Israel wanted the Hamas attacks under any circumstances. Netanyahu was trying divide and rule - not to provoke a successful Hamas attack, but to prevent meaningful opposition in the west bank.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
I really don't get your last sentence and if I was Israeli would find it offensive.briantrumpet said:Even if there are exceptions for when innocent people are being used as human shields, surely there must be some judgement about how many is too many... a couple of old people.... ten younger people... 50 babies... at what point does the action become disproportionate, however heinous the actions of those using innocents as human shields? It doesn't feel that this indiscriminate killing and destruction is proportionate, and that, however difficult, alternative actions could be taken.
That there seems to be nothing smarter going on than wholesale destruction (from what I can see) suggests that, from both sides, there's no effort to limit the killing & destruction.
Check the news reports of Oct 7th and you will see that far from trying to limit the killing and destruction hamas was doing the very opposite. They then scurried back to their bomb shelters and left their own civilians to die.
Hamas's stated aim is to wipe out Israel and the Israeli's. I would argue the only thing that has stopped them is the might of the Israeli defences and as such can see why they would be reluctant to give up any means of defending themselves
I'm not disputing that Hamas are murderous thugs with despicable aims.
But I am asking where does a 'proportionate response' go over the line (and, by implication, when does 'defending themselves' turn into an offensive mission), without any regard to innocent people. I'm sure you'll be aware of some Israeli cabinet members proclaiming that no Gaza Palestinians are innocent.
https://thewire.in/world/northern-gaza-israel-palestine-conflictIsrael’s president Isaac Herzog claimed in a press conference that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, while thousands of Palestinians struggled to flee northern Gaza after Israel’s military told some 1.1 million of them to evacuate south ahead of an anticipated military operation.
“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday, October 13
My suspicion is that Netanyahu correctly assessed that a functioning Hamas would eventually do what they did, and that would give the pretext for an 'offensive defence' through which Gaza could be turned into a hellscape for Palenstinians, with the eventual aim of Israel annexing it.Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there was plenty of blame to go around — he described the attack as a collective failing — but put the courtship of Hamas squarely on Netanyahu.
“In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas,” he told POLITICO. “Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-border-troops-women-hamas-warnings-war-october-7-benjamin-netanyahu
I think that the notion of 'an Israeli', as if they are, as one, all supporting Netanyahu and the Gaza retaliation, isn't representing the breadth of opinion there. Sure, some will be offended, but being offended doesn't afford moral superiority, any more than it does to UK racists who are 'offended' by foreigners coming over in boats.
Israel has no interest in Gaza (nor does Egypt).
Fair comment, but enabling Hamas when they are known for their barbarity isn't a neutral action. I think there are plenty of Israelis who dont think that Netanyahu is acting in Israel's interest, only his own.
I'm assuming I'm allowed to criticise Netanyahu.
"But Hamas...."0 -
The element of goodwill shown by both sides in negotiating the hostage release deal in the Gaza conflict is surely a positive sign. Compromise should not be viewed as a betrayal, particularly if it leads to the greater good.
Further to the castigation of Qatar during the staging of the football World Cup in 2022, I can't help but admire their role in helping to broker the hostage deal.0 -
bikes_and_dogs said:
The element of goodwill shown by both sides in negotiating the hostage release deal in the Gaza conflict is surely a positive sign. Compromise should not be viewed as a betrayal, particularly if it leads to the greater good.
Further to the castigation of Qatar during the staging of the football World Cup in 2022, I can't help but admire their role in helping to broker the hostage deal.
I think Biden has used US leverage here. He might be old, but/and I think he knows how to persuade/charm people to do things.0 -
As much goodwill as you get for taking hostages to begin with.bikes_and_dogs said:The element of goodwill shown by both sides in negotiating the hostage release deal in the Gaza conflict is surely a positive sign. Compromise should not be viewed as a betrayal, particularly if it leads to the greater good.
Further to the castigation of Qatar during the staging of the football World Cup in 2022, I can't help but admire their role in helping to broker the hostage deal.0
