A Political Thread pt. 2

[Welsh Exile]

If on October 7th they killed 800 IDF and a few hundred civilians I would say fair play. Obviously would be sad for those civilians but that would be ok in my book. I would even say that as the whole West Bank stuff is illegal that those "civilian" settlers there could legitimately be called military targets.

 

[McTallshort]

Fair enough and my last word would be that if the IRA were Hamas we'd still be fighting them and even old Maggie would've got tooled up and started gunning down Irish left right and center.

And the final final thing i will say is......PIRA never behaved like Hamas because the British government didn't behave like the Israeli one.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Yes I largely agree and it's why I won't listen to your Douglas Murray's or Ben Shapiros who act exactly how you describe, that Isreal is blameless in everything and are just responding to constant attacks. Clearly they are fostering a bad environment that encourages push back. Clearly they have done some reprehensible stuff since 48 (especially since 67) and not just since October 7th but this goes both ways too. Innocent Palestinians and Israelis get caught up in the reckless actions of their ruling governments.

The thing is Hamas engages in shall we say individual acts which are more heinous and they are pretty blatant in their aims to indiscriminately harm Israelis. It makes it very easy to correctly conclude they are bad guys. The thing is, beyond things like the attacks that led to the current situation, they don't have the capacity to do much.

Israel try to maintain the pretence of decency yet were engaging in violence and displacing thousands every year during the "peaceful" years. They also have vastly more capacity to do harm than Hamas and, regardless of the perceived "evilness" of each side, the harm Israel had inflicted is orders of magnitude above that Hamas has.

 

[Welsh Exile]

And the final final thing i will say is......PIRA never behaved like Hamas because the British government didn't behave like the Israeli one.

And my last word will be (lol) Why didn't the ANC act like Hamas? Why did Mandela and the ANC not even get into the triple figures for civilian death when they were subjected to horrific conditions. I just don't think it's inevitable but we won't agree.

 

[Welsh Exile]

The thing is Hamas engages in shall we say individual acts which are more heinous and they are pretty blatant in their aims to indiscriminately harm Israelis. It makes it very easy to correctly conclude they are bad guys. The thing is, beyond things like the attacks that led to the current situation, they don't have the capacity to do much.

Israel try to maintain the pretence of decency yet were engaging in violence and displacing thousands every year during the "peaceful" years. They also have vastly more capacity to do harm than Hamas and, regardless of the perceived "evilness" of each side, the harm Israel had inflicted is orders of magnitude above that Hamas has.

I think they could not do what they're doing. By definition all resistance groups can't do much against the powers they're fighting but they definitely don't, and haven't unless you're Hamas, do what Hamas do.

Why don't they, because in my opinion most resistance moments are primarily concerned with securing land, peace and sovereignty for their people. Hamas are concerned with global Jewish (And western really) genocide. So it makes perfect sense why they do what they do and why the ANC, who were thinking about life after they won and how they could best win people over and things like that and not just we need to kill all the whites or the Irish saying we need to kill all the Brits and **** our people and anything else.

 

[dirty harry]

Fair

 

[McTallshort]

And my last word will be (lol) Why didn't the ANC act like Hamas? Why did Mandela and the ANC not even get into the triple figures for civilian death when they were subjected to horrific conditions. I just don't think it's inevitable but we won't agree.

We won't. Anyway I'm down in Cheltenham for the Army v RAF game tomorrow so won't be surfacing till at least Monday. Laters

 

[Welsh Exile]

We won't. Anyway I'm down in Cheltenham for the Army v RAF game tomorrow so won't be surfacing till at least Monday. Laters

Have a good one mate.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

My view is that Hamas are a bit of a red herring in this conversation. They're relevant of course and would preferably not exist but Israel's actions are only acting to ensure any male who survives to the age of about 14 will join them. The people there don't need to be radicalised, Israel is doing that for them by making them grow up completely exposed to violence, it'll be all that they know.

It really leaves Israel with the options of ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people or changing approach. The onus has to be on Israel to improve this situation, the Palestinian people are trapped by both the IDF and Hamas and completely powerless. Hamas are what they are and won't change.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think they could not do what they're doing. By definition all resistance groups can't do much against the powers they're fighting but they definitely don't, and haven't unless you're Hamas, do what Hamas do.

Why don't they, because in my opinion most resistance moments are primarily concerned with securing land, peace and sovereignty for their people. Hamas are concerned with global Jewish (And western really) genocide. So it makes perfect sense why they do what they do and why the ANC, who were thinking about life after they won and how they could best win people over and things like that and not just we need to kill all the whites or the Irish saying we need to kill all the Brits and **** our people and anything else.

Nobody is disputing that Hamas are evil, the issue is the portrayal of Israel as reasonable. They are not.

 

[dirty harry]

Nobody is disputing that Hamas are evil, the issue is the portrayal of Israel as reasonable. They are not.

Where would you draw the distinction between reasonable and not reasonable in Isreals situation?

 

[Ddanno]

Where would you draw the distinction between reasonable and not reasonable in Isreals situation?

How far would you go? How many children dead? How many civilians dead? How many homes turned to gravel? How many innocents displaced? How many starving? Desperate for medicine but the hospital is either rubble or too risky? Is 53,000 dead enough yet? Is 12,000+ children dead enough yet? Is the uncounted maimed and life changingly injured enough yet?

Does the above sound reasonable to you? How much more of this has to happen?

You put some numbers on it first.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

What Donald Trump did this week should terrify Benjamin Netanyahu. This is why | Jonathan Freedland

The president’s Middle East tour made one thing clear – he will betray his one-time ally in a heartbeat. He is already doing it, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

www.theguardian.com

 

[Welsh Exile]

How far would you go? How many children dead? How many civilians dead? How many homes turned to gravel? How many innocents displaced? How many starving? Desperate for medicine but the hospital is either rubble or too risky? Is 53,000 dead enough yet? Is 12,000+ children dead enough yet? Is the uncounted maimed and life changingly injured enough yet?

Does the above sound reasonable to you? How much more of this has to happen?

You put some numbers on it first.

There's no answer to this question and it's why there is no specific combatant to civilian death ratio that is given in international law (I've seen anything from 1:9 to 1:3 combatant to civilian death toll in urban conflicts. It goes back to this point I keep making that there's a balancing act between limiting a states action to wage war and not.

I believe the Geneva convention outlines things a military must do like how necessary is said strike, have you distinguished between civilian and combatant, have you taken precautionary measures to minimise civilian death, how advantageous is said military strike to achieving your military aims etc. There's a whole heap of risk assessments and chain of commands that these things have to go through that we don't really see. Admittedly not helped by Israel's refusal to make these things transparent but you can't put a number on it. I mean even if you said on October 7th that you could wipe out Hamas but kill 10 thousand kids in the process. No one is going to think that's reasonable as killing one child isn't reasonable in the sense of how ****** yo that is but again, you have to strike a balance between letting a nation wage war but also keeping things in check. It's why no number is inscribed in law as it's impossible.

If Gaza was the size of Iraq with a 2 mil population and an under 18 population of under 20% I don't think anyone would say 20 thousand kids dying is acceptable as you should've taken measures in a large area in a population with less kids that the civilian death count was low but in Gaza this makes things more difficult.

That's a lot winded way of saying I don't know and I for sure wouldn't want to be in the position to make these calls.

 

[Ddanno]

It's incredibly reductive but I think the idea is valid: how much is enough? How many kids? How many mums, how many Dads? How many homes, how many hospitals, how many schools, how many families trying to scrape a living? Actually, scraping a survival?

The Israeli war machine isn't hunting Hamas, it's hunting a population

 

[Welsh Exile]

It's incredibly reductive but I think the idea is valid: how much is enough?

I don't know mate. Intuitively, with a lack of info, it feels they've gone way past it. I thought when they went into Rafa and killed dief or whatever his name is that things should start winding down but sadly that is not the case and it is looking increasingly likely that eradicating Hamas isn't on the table. Which begs the question, has this been worth it? But then I think the alternative of doing some half arsed **** with Hamas becoming stronger is also a **** situation that ultimately lets them win where they can do October 7th on repeat and not suffer any real consequences but like in all war it's the ordinary people that suffer.

 

[Ddanno]

but like in all war it's the ordinary people that suffer.

I think this is is my biggest issue (don't quote me on this yet)

It's a gruesome civil war with a very half arsed aggressor* since most of Hamas' command won't deign to be seen anywhere near Gaza . Meanwhile one of the most heavily armed military forces on the planet can just do as they wish.

In the middle, there's kids.

*former aggressor. That ***le is very much on Israels brow now

 

[Ddanno]

Hey Welshexie don't like my posts too quick, I always have follow up thoughts

 

[Ddanno]

Deleted

 

[Welsh Exile]

Hey Welshexie don't like my posts too quick, I always have follow up thoughts

I appreciate you and everyone on here. I may disagree with certain perspectives and interpretations but I know you and others are coming at this from a completely normal and reasonable standpoint of
Not wanting innocent people to die, which they undeniably are.

Not going for sympathy here and this is obviously not war related but I've seen a 2 year old family member of mine die in a violent way and seen him bleed out. It's something that will naturally stay with me for life and I can only imagine what it must be like to hold your own child dying in your arms. I well up when I see an oxfam advert on tv let alone seeing the horrors in Gaza with parents pulling their kids out of rubble.