UKH

The Jerusalem Post reports [ https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-783423  ] "Israel’s rock climbing team was barred from participating in the international competition “Dock Masters 2024” in Utrecht, Netherlands, event organizer Royal Dutch Mountaineering and Climbing Club (NKBV) said in a Tuesday statement.

The NKBV said the ban was in response to potential security threats Israeli athletes faced simply by participating in the event, as the NKBV claims they cannot guarantee the safety of Israel's national team members.

Ayala Kerem, who is currently considered the top athlete in Israel in the field and is even marked by the Olympic Committee to go to the Paris Olympics, was scheduled to participate in the competition, so her non-participation could harm her chances of reaching the Olympics...."

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Old/fake news. NKBV did NOT organize this comp, it was organized by a privately owned bouldering gym.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Yeah, there's so much wrong in that so called report it's difficult to know where to start...

Just for starters.......DockMasters has already happened earlier this year.

Ayala Kerem's chances of going to the Olympics will be damaged by non-participation? Huh, her chances are only going to be damaged by a poor performance in the Qualifying Series, one round of which is happening right now and the next in June (Budapest).

Terrible reporting.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

https://nkbv.nl/actueel/nieuws/nkbv-neemt-afstand-van-artikel-in-jerusalem-...

The response by the NKBV, translated by AI, checked by me:

NKBV distances itself from article in the Jerusalem Post about Dock Masters

The Royal Dutch Climbing and Mountaineering Association (NKBV) was unpleasantly surprised by an article in the Jerusalem Post about the rejection of three Israeli athletes from the bouldering event Dock Masters, held on January 27 and 28 in Utrecht. In this message, we provide clarification about the events and facts.

Revocation of Invitation

The NKBV is not the organizer of the event but does provide logistical support to the Dock Masters organization. Initially, three Israeli athletes who had registered for the event were removed from the participant list by the Dock Masters organization. This decision was made after the organization received threats on social media regarding the participation of these athletes. The decision was taken out of concern for the safety of participants and the public. The climbers' nationality was not a factor in this decision.

Jerusalem Post Article

The revocation of the invitations was disappointing for the three Israeli climbers, and eventually, the Jerusalem Post caught wind of it. The publication wrote an article stating that the NKBV was the organizer and had made the decision. Another piece of incorrect information was that the chances of one of the climbers participating in the Olympics would diminish. Dock Masters is not an official IFSC competition, and participation has no impact on the chances of competing in the Olympics.

The article led to several hate messages/emails, accusing the NKBV of antisemitism. The NKBV also received concerned messages asking for clarification.

Contact with Multiple Parties

After the organization contacted the police and the municipality of Utrecht at the end of the week, it was confirmed that safety could be guaranteed, and the athletes were informed that they were welcome to participate after all. Unfortunately, it was too late for them to travel to the event. However, after receiving further explanation about the decisions made, they understood the situation.

The NKBV also contacted its sister organization in Israel and the CIDI (Center for Information and Documentation on Israel) to clarify what had happened. Both organizations were pleased with this explanation and the transparency from the NKBV. The athletes also appreciated this contact and expressed their willingness to participate in Dock Masters next year.

Response from NKBV Director Robin Baks

"It is very unfortunate that things turned out this way," said NKBV Director Robin Baks. "But I can understand the organization being alarmed when faced with serious threats. Unfortunately, the police were not involved immediately; otherwise, this commotion would have been unnecessary. The information in the Jerusalem Post is completely incorrect. They wrote about an Olympic qualification, which is not the case. Dock Masters is not part of the Olympic qualification cycle."

In reply to Jesse Nagel:

Thanks for that Jesse.

Hate mail? Accusations of anti-Semitism? FFS.

In reply to Jesse Nagel:

"This decision was made after the organization received threats on social media regarding the participation of these athletes. The decision was taken out of concern for the safety of participants and the public. The climbers' nationality was not a factor in this decision"

So let's get this right. Threats were made to the organizers, based on the particpation of three athletes, either on the basis of nationality or ethnic origin. So the organizers boot the athletes out.

If you want to make an a-priori political statement and not open your competition to athletes from various countries, that is your choice I guess. But to dis-invite athletes based on threats is just bowing to the blackshirts.

Shame on them!

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

If we are barring Russians then we should bar Israel the same way, otherwise it would be an outrageous western values double standard. But I think they should be allowed to compete under a neutral flag like the Russians, the athletes themselves are not to blame for their countries atrocities.

In reply to Ramon Marin:

You are saying that the invasion of Ukraine is equivalent to the IDF actions in Gaza. 
 

The Israeli hostages’ families might argue that the situation is more complex than your simplistic equivalence Ramon.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

I don't think the Russians are committing genocide so maybe you've got as point.

The families of the thousands Palestinians arrested, tortured, sexually abused & held under no charge for years by the Israeli government might argue that the situation is more complex.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Yes you very correct, I am indeed saying that the systematic and deliberate murder of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians is actually worst than what the Russians are doing, it's genocide. It's human extermination. In answer to your statement about hostages, Israel keeps and has kept thousands of hostages for years, some in worse conditions than Hamas themselves, so that is not a valid point to justify the assassinations of babies, children and pregnant women.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

You’re right, there’s definitely a case for banning any climbers representing Hamas as well. 

In reply to Tyler:

Well, Palestinians right? Unless these climbers are IDF fighters? 

In reply to FreshSlate:

Facetious, I know, but… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Israel

Sorry I don’t have time for a nuanced argument and I accept your point. 

In reply to Ramon Marin:

Who is justifying that? 

The use of siege against civilians and indiscriminate bombing of civilians are war crimes and should be prosecuted as such. I’d like to see Netanyahu in the dock for his crimes in Gaza, if the Israelis don’t get him in the dock on charges of corruption first.

I also think that UK and US should be withholding arms whilst the actions in Gaza cause such harm to civilians.

Nevertheless, your false equivalence between Russia’s unprovoked act of war to annex another country, and Israel’s response to the murder of 1200 civilians on its own territory, deserves to be challenged.

In reply to Ramon Marin:

You're using a lot of terms there which are your opinion (and the opinion of others) rather than fact, probably because of your anger about what's going on.

Yes it's truly awful and I don't agree with how Israel are pursuing Hamas because of the impact on the rest of the population, but if it's genocide and human extermination, then the Israelis are doing a pretty piss poor job in only killing a bit over 1% of the population (as bad as that is).

In reply to Michael Hood:

it’s closer to 2% now (34,844 out of 2,142,000- of which 12,800 were women and children)

Gaza war: Why is the UN citing lower death toll for women and children? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69014893
 

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/gaza-strip/#people-and-soc...

scaled to the U.K., for a similar death rate, that would translate to over a million deaths. For comparison, total British deaths in the whole of  WW2 were 454,000, including 70,000 civilians. It’s a scale of destruction and death which I think is hard to grasp- and reducing it to a percentage has a minimising effect which obscures the impact. It’s similar to Covid; there was a vocal position during the pandemic pointing out the case fatality rate was “only” around 1%, implying it wasn’t that bad and control measures were unjustified- but that 1% meant over 7 million deaths, and the overwhelming of healthcare systems in northern Italy and Madrid.

And just because not every Gazan is dead, doesn’t meant it might not be genocide. The ICC definition is as follows:

First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
 

Obviously it is for the Court to decide if it’s genocide, not posters here; but they’ve already agreed to hear the case, and given the credible claims of famine being used as a weapon, the degrading of the healthcare system (with IDF claims of hospitals being used as Hamas control centres being questionable), comments by senior Israeli officials, and the reported acceptance of disproportionate civilian casualties to target Hamas members, a finding of genocide certainly seems a possible outcome. 

The consequences of this would be catastrophic. It would put the UK, US and Europe in a position of having to cut ties with a key ally and assist in bringing Israeli government and military figures before the ICC; or rejecting the court’s findings. The latter course of action would basically spell the end of any pretence of there being a rules-based international order, and destroy any remaining moral legitimacy that the West has. 

A finding of genocide could even leave multiple Western governments in legal difficulty, and needing to reject the Court’s ruling to protect their own officials. 

We should not have allowed it to get to this point. It should have been made much clearer, much sooner by the US that the conduct of the war had to change, or support would be withdrawn. Israel is of course sovereign, and free to prosecute its wars as it chooses; in taking the course it has, it has squandered the sympathy and support of the world, and is going to be viewed as a pariah by a generation growing up watching this horror night after night. But we have to be making our own policy decisions in the interests of the U.K., and the west in general- and the de facto unconditional support we are giving Israel on this may prove very costly. 

In reply to Michael Hood:

‘Genocide' doesn’t necessarily mean the extermination of an entire group, but often just part of a group. A tribunal in Yugoslavia in 1999 ruled that genocidal intent can be manifest in the persecution of small groups of people as well as large ones. According to the tribunal, such intent

‘may consist of desiring the extermination of a very large number of the members of the group, in which case it would constitute an intention to destroy a group en masse. However, it may also consist of the desired destruction of a more limited number of persons selected for the impact that their disappearance would have upon the survival of the group as such. This would then constitute an intention to destroy the group “selectively.”’

I’ve taken this straight from britannica.com.
 

In reply to Ramon Marin:

As mrjonathanr points out, it's not a double standard, because the two situations are not the same. 

The argument made for excluding Russia is not the same as one would make for excluding Israel - that's not to say that one *can't* be made, but it should be done on the basis of Israel's actions and not, "because Russia."

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I had a long post agreeing with you but it just adds to the noise.

As you and others note, genocide is about wider deleterious impacts as well as immediate killings/deaths.  That there is active debate about if the actions of Israel are genocidal or not signals to me that those actions are way beyond reasonable.  

Fault lines are showing in support from both sides of the Atlantic, but it took a *lot* for that to start.  I struggle to find any support for the Israeli state given their stances towards Russia and Ukraine. “Hypocrisy” isn’t a strong enough word.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I think sport and academic boycotts are important whenever a government acts truly terribly. 

I realise how fraught this is because it is also important to build bridges and motivations for a boycott can so easily be misinterpreted.

I think Israel deserves to be held to a higher standard by us than other countries that we don't have such links and allegiances with (eg China etc). I don't think us boycotting China would on balance help. Israel is a democracy. Voters there need to have it made clear to them that their friends in the west are appalled at their inhumanity towards the Palestinians. 

In reply to Michael Hood:

What a facile argument.  You ignore:

• That Israeli state sanctioned killing of Palestinian’s through this action is not over
• The most recent estimated date rates
• The impact of persistent starvation or near starvation on future  birth and death rates and the impact of that on population decline
• The impact of destroying over 60% of all buildings including housing on future birth and death rates and the impact of that on population decline

That’s before we consider IDFs habit of turning a blind eye to extremist settler actions against Palestinians.

Considering all the actions and consequences its hard to see a viable Palestinian society emerging from the rubble, the consequences of which down the line are far more severe than your “1%” take.

Taking a number from a time point part way through an event in progress, and disregarding critical context, has a real resonance with some of the Covid denialism we saw a few years ago.

In reply to mrjonathanr: hamas are an extremist organisation and the October 7th attacks were an atrocity. Israel should have been excluded from sporting and cultural events years ago because it’s an apartheid state. 

In reply to wintertree:

I think you're misunderstanding what I was trying to say - I wasn't trying to minimise what's happened and is happening. I was arguing about the terms used to describe it, but essentially that eventually comes down to semantics, definitions and opinions, so it's probably not worth arguing about because it doesn't alter the reality on the ground.

I think we can all agree though that at the very least, Israel's government is pursuing Hamas in a way that they know will inevitably cause a huge amount of civilian deaths and hardship (lack of food, housing, infrastructure) leading to further mortality in times to come - and that this is unacceptable to many. The ICJ can decide on whether what's been done fits the definition of genocide. 

In reply to wintertree:

..

A recent statistic that shocked me is that there is now more rubble in Gaza than in the Whole of Ukraine... That rubble is polluted by large amounts of asbestos, explosives and dead bodies and will take a generation to clear without international help.

In reply to Michael Hood:

What you said was this:

It seems clear to me that your text is suggesting it’s not genocide because - if you massively lowball the consequences as your post does (“a pretty piss poor job”) it is further from genocide than if all the facts are considered and a number is not lowballed and is qualified as non-final.  Take all that in to account and it’s a very different story.

If as you say you weren’t trying to minimise what has happened, then this post I replied to is pretty ill thought out and unfortunate in my view.

I wasn’t engaging with other points from other posts, just the point I replied to.

In reply to wintertree:

I don’t think this point is as facile as you make out. The long run effects of genocide on population numbers are probably worse than a famine. 

For example, the long run effects of the Holocaust on the worldwide Jewish population:

https://archive.ph/2024.05.02-231933/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wo...

Tl;dr it might have taken seventy years to return to where it was in 1939. But it might take longer.

Compare this to the population of Ethiopia after the severe famine of the 1980s:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-57428039

tl;dr no discernible effect over the long term. Ethiopia has a massive population.

Now obviously I’m aware of differences in birth rates between developed and undeveloped countries, there are obviously a lot of other factors, but targeted mass killing just has a bigger long term effect than a famine. (For avoidance of doubt, famines are terrible and obviously do have long term effects.) 

As for percentages killed, it’s worth remembering that in Rwanda (an uncontested example of genocide), around two thirds of Tutsis were killed in just one hundred days. Generally by machete, rather than modern weaponry. Plus there were a quarter to half a million rapes with many subsequent HIV infections. Even taking your criticisms into account, the scale of Rwanda was very different and unlikely to be approached in the current Israel-Palestine conflict. 

This is not to downplay the severity of the war. Netanyahu should certainly be tried for war crimes. It’s clear that, as per your points on the impossibility of a viable Palestinian society on Gaza, he’s thrown down a challenge to the Gulf States and others: rebuild this at huge cost or take these people in as refugees. Which is ethnic cleansing. 

In reply to Michael Hood:

You compound your earlier distortion of facts with a new perversity - 'this is unacceptable to many.’ I would hope that the (apparently) deliberate mass slaughter of innocent women and children is unacceptable by all.

I think it is very clear that Netanyahu’s actions have little to do with getting rid of Hamas (a Knesset spokesman Amit Halevi has confirmed, on May 16, that all 24 Hamas brigades in Gaza are still intact), or with getting the hostages back. He couldn’t give a damn about them, except insofar as it has given him the pretext to pursue his long-term aim (stated many times over four decades) of creating ‘a greater Israel from “the river to the sea”’ - the Zionist project of wiping out the possibility of a State of Palestine. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said in early March that Israel’s attacks on Gaza “give the impression that its objectives go beyond destroying Hamas.” Netanyahu himself made this quite clear in a speech in January this year when he quoted the bible (I Samuel 15: 3-4): “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” By turning the 365 km2 Gaza Strip into an uninhabitable wasteland for its 2.3 million population, he is doing all he can to prevent a two-state solution. There is also the dark subplot that he is putting his own political survival beyond all else.

In reply to wintertree:

My post was in response to Ramon Marin's post. The IDF are generally considered to be an effective army (whatever that means), and what I was trying to convey with my "piss poor" post was that if the IDF was deliberately trying to "exterminate" the civilian population, then the death toll would be a lot higher.

Outside of that immediate context, I accept what I posted can come across as "minimising".

I think that what's effectively happening is rampant indifference driven by the Israeli government's "destroy Hamas regardless of the collateral damage" policy.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I agree with some of your points, especially with regard to Netanyahu's motivations.

What I don't see, presuming he's excluding a 2-state solution, is what his long-term vision for the future of the region is. Surely he's not deluded in thinking that the Palestinians can actually be displaced, and surely he can't believe that the "stalemate" that's effectively existed since Oslo fell apart is indefinitely maintainable.

That the Palestinians will eventually come to a quiet acceptance - can't see how that one's going to come about, the last 6 months are rather going in the wrong direction for that.

Maybe he's just driven by a belief that Hamas is a cancer that has to be excised regardless of how much is destroyed with it and that this is necessary before the long-term can be considered.

Biggest problem I see with that is that Hamas isn't just a physical thing, it's an ideology. You can't excise that just by killing off those who take that ideology into armed conflict, the ideology remains.

I just don't get it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

You’re an author, aren’t you? Six or seven published books and a lot more digitally? So a literate and intelligent person, who will know that that Zionism is simply the belief in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish homeland.

You can argue the rights and wrongs of this freely. You can recognise that within the extensive group of people who believe that, some hold the extreme and unacceptable views to which you refer.

What you can’t do is use the term to characterise everyone who believes Israel has a right to exist as being part of a project to destroy the option of a homeland for Palestinians too.

is a syllogism which conflates a subset of a group - extreme right wing zionists, such as Netanyahu- with the whole group. Given the widespread opposition from Israeli civil society and worldwide Jewry to the suffering in Gaza, to the unlawful settlements and the unequal treatment of Palestinians within Israel, it’s a calumny.

You should retract it.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Whilst discussing this a few months ago it became clear that Gordon was unaware that Sudan had been a British colony. I think it’s fair to say that his undoubted skills as an author and photographer are not matched by his knowledge of history or geopolitics. 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I don't know that I'm convinced of that. Cast your mind back to pre Oct 7th, and Netanyahu's government was facing unprecedented protests from the Israeli public on fundamentalist reforms.

Grim as it is, the Oct 7th attacks couldn't have come at a better time for Netanyahu - politically speaking. I wonder how much his actions in Gaza have to do with a genuinely held ideology, versus his fear of the consequences from his own government if he does not show a strong hand, and his own desire to hold on to power.

In reply to planetmarshall:

I'm not sure where he was politically before October 7th. Although since then he has lost a lot of support in Israel, even his own government are criticising him. Support for Israel amongst the public in the US has collapsed amongst younger voters and Democrat voters. Biden's polling in swing states has really been hammered. Support amongst the political class and in the mainstream media remains generally strong in the US and UK. But they're under unprecedented pressure from the public.

In reply to seankenny:

Agree with most of your post, thanks.

I mean that the point as made ignored many of the deleterious effects on the population, which is ignoring the complexity.  To me that’s a definition of facile.  Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of the word.

However far the actions are from genocide, ignoring many of the harmful effects to claim it’s not genocide is not in my view on.  I’m glad the poster has recognised that.  My point was not that it is genocide, but that another poster was minimising the harms.

I came here to say that, not to take a view on of its genocide or not.  Impossible to say before the hostilities are stopped and we see what happens next. Given how close many people are to starvation a lot could turn on a knife edge, hopefully the US built floating pier helps - astounding that this is the only sustainable way aid is to be permitted in.

I agree that there are far worse and clear cut examples of genocide documented. Arguing about if actions fall short of genocide or not shows they are way beyond what should be tolerated.

It’s hard to imagine the population living sustainably after this. Israel should not be allowed the benefit of one square meter of the territory.  

In reply to wintertree:

I think the problem is that many conflicts can be deeply terrible, but not genocides. For example, the civil war in South Sudan saw the use of hunger as a weapon, which is what we’re seeing now in Gaza, but it isn’t classed as a genocide. And because most people are unaware of that conflict, or many like it, when they see similar they reach for the worst possible descriptor they have. But there are many shades of human depravity, and their effects on societies are all a little bit different.

Unfortunately I do think that the number of people being killed is an inherent part of thinking about genocides, but of course that isn’t the whole story and it can’t ever be reduced down to simple numbers without considering the wider context. I can’t remember a time when a modern democratic country starved its opponents in such a blatant manner, and to my mind “genocide or not?” discussions help to obscure that fact, making the use of the g-word something of an own goal by pro-Palestinian supporters in the U.K.

What a depressing conversation to be having. 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I don't think that is clear really. There is a lot of speculation on Netanyahu's ulterior motives, especially given he is a hard-liner. But the idea that he wants Hamas to remain seems extremely doubtful. It may sound pedantic, but the IDF is targeting Hamas as it is targeting Hamas military infrastructure, in particular, some 500km of tunnels under pretty much all of urban Gaza.

Surely that is getting rid of Hamas? Only Hamas is allowed in these tunnels. They aren't created for or used to protect the civilian population. The civilian population is not allowed to shelter there. They are Hamas. 

That tunnel network is also why Israel is having to employ 1000-2000lb bombs rather than smaller ordinance people seem to expect them to employ.  Hence the imagery looks so horrific. That is the nature of urban warfare. Look at Rafah, Allepo, Mosul, Mariupol, or Ramadi ... you see the same. Urban warfare cannot be anything other than horrific.  Which is also why we have the insistence on military infrastructure being separated from civilian infrastructure. Otherwise the destruction of one automatically results in the other. yet this seems intentional by Hamas. Their stated aim is to use civilians as 'martyrs'.  Every dead civilian filmed or photographed or numbered does more to restrict the IDFs abilitary to wage war than anything Hamas does.

As for Amit Halevi's comment, it isn't that the Hamas brigades are 'intact'.  Rather than they haven't all been destroyed - yet.  

The question about the existence of Gaza more generally is an interesting one. In all honesty, would I rather a Gaza run by Hamas, a true apartheid state where no Jews are allowed, a state that allows no minorities (be they religious, sexual or political), where there is no democracy, which is utterly corrupt, and which has a stated aim of more 7th of October attacks until there are no Jews, not just in Israel, but on the planet? Or would I rather it administered by Israel - a state that gives full suffrage to Muslim Arabs and is the most liberal democratic state in the region - or potentially be administered by a neighbouring state? I have to say, I would choose either of those two ahead of the existing Gazan leadership. Though, neither Jordan, nor Egypt, nor seemingly any Muslim state further afield really want anything to do with the Palestinians.

In Israeli eyes, the original two-state solution came with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the question over how to cater for the statehood of roaming tribes with fluid borders. The solution, not decided by them, was 'the river to the sea' being a Jewish state - notionally a Jewish Palestine that was open to Muslims and Arabs...and the Trans-Jordan, Arab Palestine, that was closed to Jews. While there are obvious issues with that, it was also something that could have worked. But seemingly, the presence of Jews anywhere in the vast Muslim world is intolerable. These ever-present images of Palestine in 1946, 1947, 1967 and now, portray a skewed picture of Israeli statehood - as much as there is ample room to criticise Netanyahu and Israeli politics.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Some of the Israeli team have been pretty vocal in their support for the invasion of Gaza on Instagram especially, although not Ayala or Alex to be fair to them. 

In reply to mrjonathanr:

no it's worse

In reply to Andsomemore:

Wasn't Palestine a mix, including a Jewish minority before the formation of Israel? And the formation of Israel was to create a Jewish state with a Jewish majority?

In reply to climberclimber321:

Can you explain why you think that?

In reply to Ramon Marin:

Ha ha, welcome to the real world!! The double standards are glaringly obvious, and if anyone points them out they're labelled as peddlers of hate.

It's sickening the plurality of it all, the US building shit bridges in the sea to get 10 trucks of aid in, while simultaneously supply Israel with $bn of weapons!! All the while there's trucks being burnt and stopped from entering Gaza by the easiest and quickest routes, namely roads!!

In reply to mrjonathanr:

It's worse! Because we're aiding the aggressor here. It's a more densely populated area, Russia hasn't held the people in a ghetto for the last 12 years!...... I could go on.

You've forgotten about the Palestinian hostages, Israel have been taking for the last 76 years.

Also, how does bombing the areas the hostages are being held in, help get them out alive?

In reply to the thread:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/20/icc-prosecutor-seeks-ar...

In an extraordinary rebuke of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and its conduct in the war in Gaza, Netanyahu and Gallant are accused of extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, the denial of humanitarian relief supplies and deliberately targeting civilians.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/20/biden-icc-warrant-n...

Joe Biden has attacked as “outrageous” an application by the international criminal court for warrants seeking the arrest of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, along with senior members of Hamas, for actions carried out in Gaza.

Well, I didn’t expect my prediction to come to pass within 72 hours. Israel’s actions have indeed manoeuvred its allies into choose between backing it, or backing the processes that underpin international law. And it’s taken as long as it took for me to drive home and eat my tea for them to decide international law is to be discarded. The rest of the world will be watching and drawing their own conclusions about Western values. 

And the US and Israel aren’t signatories to the ICC, but the UK is. If the war crimes charge is proven, and we are complicit in proving weapons which were used in pursuance of these crimes, will UK cabinet ministers have to be careful about picking holiday destinations in future? 

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Can you not think? You seem to be so one sided you're missing the big picture. IDF being the aggressor when they're responding to the Oct 7th atrocities. The "ghetto," launching regular illegal rocket attacks on the civilian population for over a decade. The "ghetto," being offered back to it's original country (Egypt,) and them not wanting it. Look at the hostage stats. When 7000 Palestinians have been exchanged for 19 Israelis and eight bodies it's not exactly painting the picture of the Israelis as aggressors. And as for bombing the areas the hostages may be in, palestinans have an awful reputation on returning hostages they've took, there's also legitimate concerns about the abuse these hostages have taken that justifies Israel to think that the only choice is to go get them themselves, especially as the palestinians have sunk every ceasefire so far.

In reply to jonnie3430:

It’s not about which side is worse than the other.  By this criterion only one side can ever be wrong.

Each side should not be compared to the other but to human rights and the standard expected by international law.  By this criterion both sides can be wrong, even if one side is more wrong than the other.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

For the last twenty five years Russia has destroyed the city of Grozny, invaded Georgia, invaded Ukraine twice, worked hand in hand with the war criminal Assad in Syria and sent state-sanctioned mercenaries across the Sahel. Plus supporting and working closely with Iran, a country that beats teenage girls to death for wearing the wrong clothes, and China, a country that is accused of a genocide against its one of its own minorities.

The people who were besieged in Aleppo - with Russian help I believe - might take issue with your comment. The Ukrainian soldiers castrated by the Russians might view them as possibly worse than the IDF. 

I guess there’s either something about Israel that overwhelms your judgment, or perhaps you aren’t that well versed in foreign affairs.

In reply to wintertree:

What I would love is if someone took the pallestinian issue off Israel. If after 7 October the un said that it was unacceptable behaviour and that they were going to sort it without Israeli involvement. That Israel were stopped from having the rockets sent, the border attacked, etc. but everyone seems to complain but also leaves it all on Israel. Then see how much Israel want to be involved. By the way, if your comment "’it's not about which side is worse than the other.  By this criterion only one side can ever be wrong." Is implying that the palestinians are wrong then stop pulling the punches. The more uncertainty there is fuels the fire.

In reply to seankenny:

Both invasions are appalling, but as far as we in the UK are concerned there are two big differences: (1) we are not supporting Russia with our tax money, and (2) we have not got half our population crowing on Russia as though their actions are holy and righteous.

In reply to jonnie3430:

FWIW I strongly believe that Jews need a homeland and a place to feel safe but you would do well to think on why a lot of people would find this take deeply problematic. 

  >  And as for bombing the areas the hostages may be in, palestinans have an awful reputation on returning hostages they've took

again, this is a terrible take, your whole post only talks about Palestinians but not Hamas - you would do well to examine your own biases.  

In reply to John Stainforth:

It was more the idea that Israel has behaved much worse than Russia over a long time period, which frankly is laughable. 

As for supporting Israel with our tax money, can you please tell me how much the U.K. sends to Israel and provide a source for the figure? The only figures I’ve found seem to confuse arm exports (selling stuff) with aid (giving stuff). You’ve made this claim a couple of times so I’m assuming you have some figures to hand. Thanks in advance!

Also if they are “equally appalling” then why haven’t we seen mass protests outside the Russian embassy? Perhaps those who attend the pro-Palestinian protests could explain to me the difference. The line “but Russia won’t listen” seems to over-estimate how attentive the Israeli government is, and saying “our govt isn’t doing enough” probably holds true for Ukraine too. 

In reply to seankenny:

I've lost the thread: I didn't imply that Israel has behaved worse than Russia, nor did I say both invasions were "equally appalling"? I don't know how to quantify appallingness. 

We are supporting the American supply of weapons (use of airbases etc). I have no idea how much this costs. I also still pay some American tax, so I tend to lump all the support together. I assure you, it makes me feel very uncomfortable that our government(s) should be supporting this ethnic cleansing in any way. We are definitely complicit.

The difference with Russian, as far as we are concerned, is that we are not supporting Russia in any way; rather the opposite (the Ukrainians). I think that is a pretty clear distinction. I also assure you that if our government was supporting Russia, I would be protesting that.

In reply to seankenny:

I guess there's something about Israel that makes you play the whataboutery card every time anyone criticises it.

In reply to jonnie3430:

The big picture includes the treatment of the Palestinian population ever since the establishment of the state of Israel. This seems to be glossed over by far too many people. 

In reply to John Stainforth:

There's a considerably larger difference, in that Israel is not the world's largest nuclear power and does not harbour territorial ambitions beyond a small region in the Middle East. Nor do its actions have severe real world economic consequences on the rest of the world.

What is happening in Gaza is almost certainly criminal but lets not pretend that in terms of actual geopolitical consequences that there's any real comparison.

In reply to 65:

I was responding to someone who said: “Russia hasn't held the people in a ghetto for the last 12 years!...... I could go on.” In that context, a quick roundup of recent Russian history seemed entirely appropriate. 

If you look at my posts above, I did say I think Israel were committing war crimes. Perhaps I should give myself a quick dressing down in order to be consistent?

In reply to seankenny:

OK, fair response.

In reply to 65:

It’s almost as if reading the thread helps when responding to people!

I was discussing these issues with an Israeli friend, and he suggested the video below o give some background about a two-state solution. 

It's from Al Jazeera (which I beleive is banned in Israel?) and I found it to be really interesting and informative.

I was frankly astonished by the extent of the settlements in the west bank, and the explicit approach of "taking every hill top and negotiating down."  It's hard to believe the government of Israel and the hardliners ever a good faith commitment to a two-state solution.

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/start-here/2024/3/26/two-state-solution-e...

Anyway, it's all such a mess.

I think solutions will only emerge when 1) moderate voices regain some political power in Israel, and 2) the US and UK make it clear that Israel can not act with impunity.

In reply to brunoschull

British post-imperial delusions of grandeur never fail to amuse. When are we going to give this up and understand our true position in the world?

In reply to seankenny:

It's hard to argue that Britain has any great military clout (apart, I suppose, from the nuclear arsenal), but the Foreign Office's diplomatic corps has historically been quite well respected, and could play a role as broker/mediator in some situations.

In reply to Rampart:

So the Conservative government are well respected, never though I'd see that on UKC!

In reply to Rampart:

The unevidenced suggestion that somehow our government could be a mediator is exactly what I mean by “British post-imperial delusions of grandeur”. Our past as a colonial power and our continued closeness to the United States means that we can’t play that role to any greet extent. Although if you have any actual evidence for our skill and ability at this, do lay it out for us. 

The one thing we were good at in this respect, ie effective humanitarian aid delivery and development work, was something the Tories junked when they got rid of DfID. 

In reply to Andsomemore:

Sorry mods, I’m going to have to break my “lifetime ban” and set the record straight on some of the more outrageous inaccuracies in Andsomemore’s post that have been left unchallenged.

Andsomemore claims that Israel “gives full suffrage to Israeli Arabs” and as such is a liberal democratic state. However, Israel does not give suffrage to 100s of thousands of Palestinian Arabs (both Christian and Muslim) in East Jerusalem, which it has annexed. Also, in the occupied West Bank, it does gives universal suffrage to 100s of thousands of Jewish settlers who are living there illegally, but not to the indigenous Palestinian population. Two peoples living on the same land with different rights is an apartheid state, not a liberal democracy.

They also claim that Jordan doesn’t “want anything to do with the Palestinians” but over 2 million Palestinians are currently refugees in Jordan!

They say that Jews are banned from Gaza and that no religious minorities are allowed there. Hamas does not ban Jews from Gaza and Christians have lived there for centuries. The Israeli army does ban Israeli Jews from entering the West Bank, but many ignore this and safely visit the occupied territories. Here is an interview (in French) of a Jewish doctor who lived in Gaza for almost 2 years without ever trying to hide her identity  youtube.com/watch?v=82KynK7PXHE&

They go on to say that Trans-Jordan (Jordan!) was “closed to Jews”. This has never been the case and, if it were, it would be unenforceable. There is nothing on any passport that identifies someone as a Jew.

However, their most ludicrous claim is that Palestine was a land of roaming tribes during the Ottoman period, conveniently forgetting the existence of such cities as Jerusalem, Jaffa and Haifa. Indeed, humankind’s first experiment with permanent settlements was in this region. Jericho has evidence of settlement dating back to 10,000 BCE!

In reply to brunoschull:

I don't actually think a two state solution is viable - I can't see Gaza and the West Bank managing to be two physically disconnected parts of a single state separated by another state (East & West Pakistan didn't work resulting in Bangladesh) - I actually think the end point will eventually be a three state solution although I don't expect this to be in my lifetime and maybe not in my kids or even grand-kids' lifetimes.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Plenty of states have disconnected regions. Russia-Kalingrad, Oman, Indonesia, the UK...

Gaza and the West Bank are a little over 30km apart. This is not the most difficult part of the future political solution.

In reply to Oureed3:

The USA. 

In reply to Michael Hood:

I haven’t been to Palestine but I have been to both Pakistan and Bangladesh, and they are two really quite different countries. Language, food, culture, landscape, even religion, all feel quite different in each place. But mainly, of course, language, which is always a massive fault line in South Asian societies. They are also a very long way apart. I’m not sure that they are really a good comparison for Gaza and the West Bank.

In reply to Oureed3:

With sea routes between the parts - mind you so did East and West Pakistan.

Without that, how exactly is movement between the West Bank and Gaza going to happen in the period before complete trust is achieved between the Palestinians and the Israelis?

In reply to Michael Hood:

Bridge, tunnel, walled/fenced motorway... The Israeli's already have to deal with many 100s of kilometres of border. Another 30 isn't going to make much difference. The international community will probably be prepared to foot the bill.

In reply to seankenny:

I completely agree with you regarding post-colonial/imperial delusions of grandeur.

Nonetheless, as far as I know, the UK does supply significant arms to Israel--that's the kind of support I was talking about.  Also, despite its obvious waning influence, I think the UK is generally seen to stand with the US (rightly or wrongly) and for the "west" (whatever that means) and so it's stated position on these issues is important in symbolic terms terms.

In the US the situation is rather different.  The position of the US in the world, like the position of the UK, is changing.  However, without the extraordinary financial, political, and military support of the US, Israel would not be what it is today, and could not continue on its current path, despite the handliner's bombastic and delusional statements that, "We'll do it on our own." 

In this sense, the US (and to a far lesser extent the UK) have a large influence on Israel.

In reply to Oureed3:

I appreciate that input.

Sometimes, I step back and look at all the walls, checkpoints, guards, controls, restrictions, and so on...and it's obvious that something is deeply wrong.

We can argue strenuously about words like genocide and apartheid, and we can try to aportion blame, or take one moral high ground or the other (and shout back and forth) but its obvious that something needs to fundamentally change. 

It really leads to a whole bunch of deep questions:

• What gives a people a right to land?  A religious faith?  A history of habitation?  Military might?  Political power?  A legal document? 
• What is Israel, or what should israel be, a social democracy or a theocracy?  Can you have democracy if a country is defined by a single religion? 
• How can we lessen the hold of religious fundamentalists (on both sides) and encourage respect for shared humanity and indidual freedoms?

Etc etc etc.

Here's a link to a book that is supposed to be a very insightfull and moving take on the reality of how people live. 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77920745-a-day-in-the-life-of-abed-sala...

In reply to Michael Hood:

Destroying all habitation is a good way of encouraging a population to leave which s the stated aim of certain right wing elememts in the Israeli govt.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

The right wing elements tend to be the more religious fundamentalists. Rather ironically, and tragically, one of the religious laws when conducting a war is that you're not meant to cut down olive trees.

In reply to Oureed3:

That's one view. The other is that East Jerusalem and the West Bank are contested territories and, beyond those cases, sufferage is extended to all.  

I don't support Israel's continued hold on East Jerusalem BTW. But opposing it presumes you have a workable alternative and the situation there is not far removed from that faced by coalition forces wishing to vacate Iraq or Afghanistan. If they surrendered it, the alternatives are potentially worse - PA ceding to Hamas, Israeli Jews likely treated even less fairly than Palestinians are. The situation could go from bad to dire and without a clear political agreement, which so far seems impossible to obtain, what are the solutions?

Likewise the issue of settlers in the West Bank - with few exceptions they represent the very worst aspects of Israeli/Jewish culture.

The problem is, people seem to extend those two very real issues to being the definition of Israel and Zionism and the root cause of the current conflict. That may be the case for an English Lit student protesting in London, who knows little more than a meme of '67 borders and images from the current Gaza war. But the depths of antisemitism in broader Palestine, that saw Jewish growth and migration leading up to the formation of an Israeli state (as opposed to an Arab Muslim one contiguous with all others) as needing immediate annihilation, is what lies behind the conflict. That is why we have the mantra of 'from the river to the sea'. Without this bare-boned racism resolved, talk of a two-state solution seems futile. Arab nations were actively working on this…then Hamas launched the unprecidented attack on Israel, almost as if they didn't want the Abraham Accords to stick.

The presence of refugees doesn't mean the state is supportive of Palestinians.  The PLO wreaked havoc in Jordan and the Jordanian government crushed them as a result.

Jordanian support for the Palestinian cause, much like Egypt's, is questionable.

I perhaps wasn't clear, yes, some degree of minorities exist. But the difference between Hamas' tolerance and Israel's is like comparing Saudi Arabia with Sweden. They just aren't in the same ballpark.

However, as Hamas, with the reported support of maybe 60% at least of Gazans and as evidenced by October's mob behaviour towards Israeli civilians (dead or alive), has had until recently a stated goal of exterminating all Jews, the existence of any Jews in Gaza is not much different from their existence in the Warsaw Ghetto; some may be tolerated if they make themselves particularly useful to the cause, but existing there is to all intents impossible. Hamas may have softened their charter in the last few years, but that's most likely to shake off the terrorist organisation label to free up more assets for plunder.  Given their actions on 7 October I take that to be no more credible than if Hitler decreed he was no longer opposed to Jews, but simply wanted to terminate bankers, artists, lawyers, and bagel sellers.

Which is why I refer to 'Trans-Jordan', the terminology used at the creation of Jordan in the 1920s.  Jordan was established as the Arab-only state of East Palestine, making up some 2/3 of the total Palestine region. While West Palestine would be Israel, making up the remaining 1/3 and a mix including Jews.

Jewish migration and settlement WAS restricted to West Palestine only - modern-day Israel. The Trans-Jordan, modern-day Jordan, was for the Arabs.

As for regions being closed to Jews, this exists to this day.  Israeli passport holders are restricted from Malaysia, most of the Middle East and North Africa. You might argue it is just 'Israeli passport holders' and therefore not Jews, but it is a de-facto ban on Jews irrespective of whether it actually prevents all Jews from travelling there. Jordan, with the normalisation of relations, is one of the rare exceptions and it is noteworthy that the arrival of El Al flights in several Gulf states in the last few years was considered a major diplomatic event.

Before saying all this is just a protest against Israeli occupation, it is odd that Israel alone becomes the target of these sorts of sanctions whereas Syrian, Chinese or Burmese passport holders, among many others with far more dubious oppression records, get a free ride.

That the world's only Jewish state becomes the protest point, gives away what is really at play I think.

I think you misunderstood my point.

Of course there were settlements. The point was, the region was made up of a vast array of different peoples, existing either pre-statehood or within permeable borders that ebbed and flowed.

The idea of statehood is recent and as such the idea that there was some pre-existing land that was Palestinian misrepresents the situation. The very notion that there are a people called Palestinians, and that this is to the exclusion of Jews, and that the land currently called Palestine is 'theirs' alone is likewise a falsehood. Jews were Palestinians too, though they rejected the label. And the minority status of Jews in the land of West Palestine, then to be called Israel, at the time of its formation was both temporary and marginal and hardly justification for attempts at their eradication from the first weeks of its inception. That justification was antisemitism, and that abomination hasn't ever been resolved.

In reply to jimtitt and seankenny:

I'm sure their mother's love them.

I was referring more to the FCO civil service staff who work in embassies around the world, who are (or are supposed to be) apolitical. Anecdotally they generally seem to be calm, sensible intelligent people, just the sort to sit with conflicting parties and try to hash out a mutually agreeable settlement.
Possibly in this specific case, though, the wider British alliances and historical role might not be conducive to calming everyone down.

In reply to Rampart:

They’re not party political. But they are there to represent and advance the interests and policies of the U.K., and that is inherently political. There are calm, sensible and intelligent people in almost all embassies, but that doesn’t necessarily make them decent intermediaries. I’m sure you would find some intelligent and urbane staff in the Russian embassy but their job is to advance Russian interests, so I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them, even if I might enjoy discussing the work of Chekhov over a glass of sherry with them. 

In reply to Andsomemore:

from recent polling:

Support for Hamas as a political party has fallen to 34% among Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. 40% of gazans support armed resistance. 

In reference to the the Warsaw Ghetto, are you suggesting that Jews in Gaza are walled up in a small enclave and treated brutally while they wait for death?

 

In reply to timparkin:

In March, the PCPSR reported 71% of Gazans supported Hamas' 7th October attack - https://pcpsr.org/en/node/969

I'm not sure where your 34% figure comes from, but perhaps they are simply figures for how many people feel Hamas is doing a good job of governance generally?  Hamas is widely known to be incompetent and corrupt so it wouldn't surprise me the population has a low regard for their management.

I see what you are trying to do there.

But no, I'm saying as a minority religion in peacetime Gaza, you would live under an authoritarian government that had as a central element of its charter the global annihilation of your people.

And that this party was voted for and had the support of people.

If you looked out your window and saw jubilant scenes as a corpse of a teenage civilian murdered at a music festival was paraded through town and spat on and beaten, you may recognise this as both all-too-popular sentiment and dangerous. I'm not sure you would consider Hamas and Gaza more generally welcoming of your minority religion.  

In reply to Andsomemore:

My 34% was from the same polling. In other words, 70% of Gazan's support an armed resistance but there is a disillusionment with Hamas and there is a majority who don't agree with the 'destroy all jews' policy that Hamas has. 
 

Given the choice of Fatah and it's US alliances or Hamas, they chose what they knew. The majority don't agree with every policy and would prefer to live in peace but in the current situation realise that there only choice is resistance and armed resistance if necessary.

So you pick a single event (which is pretty vile) and characterise the full experience of every person over a whole period by that. Imagine how fowl the UK is based on the the crime that regularly happens on it's less salubrious streets (gang rape? stabbings? homeless people kicked to death in their sleeping bags?)

 

In reply to Andsomemore:

I appreciate that you are trying to respond to specific points and issues, but I feel like the logical consequences of what you are saying, or the beliefs behind what your arguments, are deeply problematic.

To me, the most troublesome aspect of you posts is that you seem to be reducing everyting to antisemitism, to hatred of jews.  Seen in this light, everything Israel stands for and does is justified, while everybody else is at best a racist bigot, and at worst a murdurous psycopath.   This just plays into the polarized thinking that so often defines this discussion, leaving no room for discussion.  I hope you agree that one can completely as support Jewish people’s freedom to practice whatever religion they wish, and also have serious reservations about 1) how the state of Israel was established, and 2) how the state of Israel has behaved over the last seventy years.

Regarding the first point, how the state of Israel was established, I think this is important because, if you believe Israel was created fairly, then you can reasonably argue that it has the right to defend itself and to prosecute its affairs as it sees fit.  In contrast, if you don’t believe the state of Israel was created fairly, then the arguments in support of Israel’s actions fall apart. 

To be clear, I don’t know how I feel about this question.  Part of me thinks there was something deeply unfair about how Israel was created (events in which British played an signifcant role).  Another part of me acknowledges that the creation of any state involves “unfairness” of this kind, and that Israel has as much claim to the land as anybody else.  

Here we could dive into a long discussion of history, who was there first, how religion and people spread around the world, what constitutes a legitmate claim to land for a particular people, and so on.  But the more important point is that these issues are not settled.  There are many good arguments and perspectives on all sides, and one can question the right of the state of Israel to exist, and therefore question how Israel behaves, without being an ant-semite.

Regarding the second point, how Israel had conducted itself since it was established, in my view it’s very clear that large segments of Israeli society have always wanted all the land to themselves, to push anybody else out, especially Muslims.  Much is made of the Muslim world’s failure to recognize the state of Israel, although it’s equally true that Israel has never recognized the right of Palestine to exist.  Moreover, apart from any political processes, the reality over time, the history of seizing the tactical high ground, of taking agricultural land, of controlling water, of enclosing cities with walls, of controlling the movement of people, of tolerating or encouraging violence against Palestinians, amounts to a sustained campaign to drive Palestinians out of this land.  Once again, in my view, we cannot justify this history in the name of self defense.

I guess, if I had any direct questions for you, they would be the following:

Do you believe that Palestine have a right to exist?  If so, how and where?

How do you justify the military action of Israel since October 7th?  Do you think the destruction and violence are excusable?  If so, how?

Of course, please feel free to ask me anything you wish.  I will do my best to answer.

In reply to timparkin:

Tell me more about the homeless people kicked to death in their sleeping bags in the UK and then their bodies dragged through town to the cheers of everyone they pass. Tell me more about that please. Or maybe stop making silly false equivalences.

In reply to timparkin:

Imagine how fowl the UK is based on the the crime that regularly happens on its less salubrious streets 

Yes, our goose would be cooked… 

In reply to Dexter:

You either don't want to or don't understand the point that Gazan civilians can't be defined by that event in the same way that the British can't be defined by the worst of our civilians. 

If you want an equivalent though, the Shankhill Butchers were applauded by Loyalists - did they represent the Zeitgeist of the British population? 

In reply to timparkin:

My reading of the PCPSR report was that the 70% figure is not 'support for armed resistence'. 

The question posed is do you you support the 7/10 attacks specifically. The question has been asked at several intervals and the response is the same at about 70%.  

I could forgive Palestinians for not knowing the full gravity of what had happened in the immediate aftermath, even supporting attacks on the IDF, and perhaps moderating that support when the full details got out over what actually happened. But their responses have remained constant.

That is what I don't get. This is ISIS-level, Manchester Arena-style, behaviour. I'm with Sam Harris on this one. The idea that you could charge across the border, happen across a music festival full of teenagers, and think all your Ramadans have come at once as this represents exactly the kind of target you wanted, is just crazy. Or that peaceful Kabutzniks, who are overwhelmingly supportive of the Palestinian cause, are perfect targets? As he often makes the case, put a civilian in front of a Hamas fighter and the likelihood (despite what we are told) is an IDF soldier will not shoot. Put an Israeli civilian in front of an IDF soldier and a Hamas militant will simply be getting two for the price of one. For all the crimes that Israel commits, there is just an order of magnitude difference between their intent.

These weren't military or political targets. A Likud Party HQ, arms depot, or barracks, where in the process of killing 100 IDF soldiers a couple of hundred civilians are caught up in the crossfire. This is a dedicated, joyful, concerted attempt to kill Jews. Actually, kill anyone in Israel - Thai farmworkers will do. Shoot them in the stomachs then cave their heads in with shovels.

The same poll says that 90% don't think atrocities have been committed against Israelis in these attacks.

I'm willing to grant them some leeway here. It's all I can do. Because if 90% of Palestinians have seen what happened on 7/10 and believe a deliberate music festival massacre, of no military value whatsoever, isn't an atrocity then I'm lost for words. So I prefer to go with it being the information they have available to them is so skewed, they saw only images of heroic Hamas freedom fighters firing RPG-7s.  

Yet if that is the level of information Palestinians have available to them, isn't it also plausible that their picture of Jews, Israel, the history of Israel, the right for Israel to exist, or even whether it is Israel or Hamas that is responsible for their inability to coexist, might also be woefully inaccurate?

Or that that presentation we likewise get is skewed?

What are those UNWRA schools teaching them?

And more to the point, when I cycled down Oxford Street on the 7th and 8th of October, why was it like Palestine had just won a cup final? Cars driving up and down, horns blaring, flags flying? 

Yes, I did. I think that image was rightfully symbolic though. I think it's important as I'm of the opinion that we have an overly sanitised perspective of what the conflict is about. That it isn't really about West Bank settlements, farmers having their olive groves trampled, or disproportionate Israeli reprisals. But it is about outright, hundred(s) year old, hatred of Jews existence in Palestine.

In reply to brunoschull:

Believe me, I understand where you are coming from there. I used to think the same and got incredibly frustrated when people trotted out the 'antisemitism' line, seemingly in the hope it would stop any criticism of Israel in its tracks.

However, recently I've come to feel it is actually justified.

Jews have been the target of particular hatred, probably since Roman times. Everyone is aware of the Holocaust, though I wonder if it hasn't just become a number to many people (especially as it is used frequently to describe Gaza). Fewer are aware of a history of pogroms and what they actually meant. Jews have suffered a sustained history of Holocausts. And it is interesting that just when you think the world has moved on from that sort of thing, some time spent around Muslims tears that notion to shreds. Outright bigotry, indistinguishable from antisemitism, can be basic dinner table conversation. In the Middle East it seems like Jews are thought of worse than blacks in the Jim Crow era deep south, and lynchings would be perfectly acceptable if your daughter was found in the company of one.

But that I can even accept to a degree. Ideas of racism and bigotry have evolved in some places faster than others. So each to their own to some degree.

What I find telling is how Israel registers on the world stage. The media or the UN.

We hold the UN in high regard as a global representative body. So why is it that Israel has had more General Assembly condemnations than any other country? You would think that with everything that has happened in the world over the last 80 years, Israel would not represent the very worst and be the forefront of global contempt? There was a speech at the GA some years back where the Israeli ambassador, Danny Danon I think, made exactly this point - it seems to have vanished from Youtube but was powerful. I hated him for it at the time and couldn't really hear what he was saying, though now my view is different.

See, the problem with things like antisemitism is we have this black and white picture of what it means. I am a good person, so I cannot be an antisemite. Nazis were bad people, they could be and wanted to be antisemites. The world is much greyer than that. I can be racist without actively harbouring hatred for blacks (my own race in this case)…I can, for example, comment on crimes when blacks commit them, while excusing rape, murders or theft when others do them (unfortunate incidents?), being acutely mentally activated when only a specific race is in question. I might harbour no ill-will to them, but if I only notice there crimes, only read about their crimes, or automatically feel like they are the wrong side because they appear more powerful, then I can fully justify my dislike of them. I think more of us are antisemites than we realise. I came to the conclusion I could fairly be accused of being one and it was a shock to me. I don't deeply begrudge those who condemn Israel because I was one of them. I can see how easily you can fall into the trap of doing so and reflexively assume Israel must be the problem here.

To take your points though:

By today's standards, no. But we are talking the creation of nation states in the immediate aftermath of 600 years of Ottoman empire. States of any sort barely existed. 

Going back to 1922, what do you do?

The proposal to create a state called Palestine, about 3/4 of which lay east of the river Jordan and was exclusively Arab, with the remaining quarter being a Jewish homeland was not crazy. Jews had a credible claim to the land afteral.

I do find it strange that people who seem to be only supportive of migration here in the UK, such that it has experienced a huge demographic shift in just a few decades in places like London, are uncomfortable with Jewish migration to a majority Muslim area, as happened in the 1920s. To the point that Zionism is a dirty word.

For comparison, take London between 1991 and 2011 (or probably any twenty year period since the 1980s). The white British population went from 80% to 60%.  We seem ok with that. We declare it to be our strength, and want no brakes put on it - those that do are labelled bigots.

Then take 1922, 'Palestine', which was some 78% Muslim and 11% Jewish. By 1944 it was 61% Muslim, 30% Jewish. 

Is that a problem? Especially in the context of not only antisemitism in the Arab world but Nazi antisemitism and pogroms in Europe? Where were the Jews to go? Much of that migration was refugees, unwelcome elsewhere, especially given they were Jews.

Yet in the Muslim world this was considered an abomination, despite Muslim/Arab lands stretching almost uninterrupted from Morocco to Afghanistan, despite Jews having lived in Palestine for thousands of years. Growth of a Jewish population in this tiny area of land was intolerable.

To be fair I'm glossing over internal conflict in Palestine. But that is because as much as Jews antagonised and attacked, so did Muslims. I challenge anyone to draw a right/wrong conclusion on the internal conflicts of the time.

So granting that land to Jews, with allowances for further immigration is something I am reasonably comfortable with. It would after all be odd to say you can have a homeland, but it is only proportional to your current population which is comprised of a mere twenty years of migration.  What about your population in ten years time? And if you factor in that the Negev Desert making up more than half of that land, the actual useful land that Israel holds is much smaller than appears so on the map.

The Arab argument then morphs after WWII to essentially NIMBYism. Israeli should be founded in Latin America, North America, Europe, anywhere but here. Translated to, we don't want Jews here.

And what did they do? They invaded, from all sides to wipe out Israel. The very same year it came in to existence. Somehow Israel survived. The Six Day War, Yom Kipur, these were existential crises that probably dwarfed the Battle Of Britain or anything the UK has experienced.

So on your second point, of how Israel has conducted itself.

I draw a separation between recent settlers, individual war-crimes committed by IDF units, the ultra-orthodox, and far-right Israeli politics….and Israel as a nation state.

I think Israel has a fair claim to the land that was Israel in 1947. That land was dramatically reduced to make concessions to the Palestinians. Those concessions were probably insufficient. They could probably never be sufficient. But do they justify Arab invasions of Israel on two occasions, the first of which was immediate, with the intent of wiping it out entirely as an entity (the Jews with it)? Do they justify the level of ongoing antagonism? A political party whose charter was the annihilation of Jews? Near continuous rocket attacks on Israel? 

I don't think we, as outsiders, can comprehend what it would be like to live in Israel. To be Jewish and surrounded by utterly hostile neighbours.  Neighbours who haven't just threatened you, but have tried to wipe you out, immediately after you suffered the Holocaust, and who very nearly achieved that. Israel has reached a conclusion; that to survive they can't rely on the outside world. They can't assume the best or wait for attacks to happen. 

I could go on but I've written way too much today.

However, I will say, I value the dialogue. The whole issue obviously winds people up and its very easy to fall strongly on one side or the other, and express nothing but disdain for the alternative view. There are for sure two distinct narratives on Palestine/Israel and working out what accurately represents the situation is elusive. I've argued strongly previously with hopelessly inaccurate information, and will likely do the same again. We have to accept that none of us have a full understanding of what is going on and be open to having our perspectives altered. The images from Gaza are horrific, and I can understand a reaction to them. I just think that the gut reaction can send us off in the wrong direction with regard to Israel's right to exist and to defend itself.

Mods, i think this thread has gone off-topic.

In reply to Andsomemore:

People have a gut reaction for a reason.  They should listen to it; all the context in the world doesn’t make horrific violence against civilians acceptable.

Israel can defend itself by defending its borders (unlike on October 7th) and by using its and its allies interceptor capabilities against missiles and drones.  In the recent attack from Iran, ballistic launched hypersonic manoeuvring reentry vehicles were successfully intercepted.  These are decades more advanced than the fireworks coming out of Gaza.  Unlike Ukraine, Israel has a ready supply of the best air defence systems the world can produce.  The land border could be fortified more.  

You’ve written a whole essay but at no point have you questioned if levelling half of the Gaza Strip and killing 30,000+ civilians was necessary for Israel to defend itself.

Far from it, I would argue that by not protecting themselves against what should have been an easily repelled attack on October 7th and then by going on a brutal 6+ month long offensive with staggering civilian consequences, Israel have given the terrorists more recruitment material than they ever could possibly have hoped for.  Their is no lens I can find in which their actions have made the future of their civilians more safe.  Which is the primary function of any sane government.

Some might sense a familiar trend to your posts.  

In reply to Dave Cundy:

There was nothing on-topic to say after the first reply.

In reply to wintertree:

Nit-picking here - if the deaths to date are approx 36,000 (figure I heard on BBC today) then civilian deaths will almost certainly be less than 30,000 - this is not trying to minimise things because there's no significant difference in arguments/justifications/revulsion whether it's 25,000 or 35,000 civilian deaths. 

I really think the right-wing Israeli government is stuck in "this is a cancer that must be totally excised regardless of the cost". There are other "motivations" (e.g. the further away from Oct 7th before Israel "formally" considers how it completely f**ked up their defence on that day, the less those responsible may be held accountable) but I think this is the main one.

But I too am struggling to see how this action has increased Israeli civilian safety in the medium to long term.

In reply to wintertree:

I covered that earlier. It is urban warfare. In an environment where the 500km of tunnels are placed under urban Gaza, where Hamas have been quite clear that putting their civilian population in harms way is their greatest weapon. 

I won't say that this reads a little like Israel is to blame for the 7/10 attack. But having occurred, what would you expect as in Israeli response, and what would be considered proportionate? 

In reply to Andsomemore:

Indeed. People also  forget the 100s of 1000s of Jews ethnically cleansed & robbed by Arab countries like Iraq and Egypt in the 1950s and 1960s. Where would they have gone were it not for the only Jewish state? Hamas' stated ambition in its own charter is a genocide of Jews and 7th October showed that given the opportunity, they will carry it out gleefully.

In reply to Andsomemore:

I have never understood why a response should be proportionate - you're trying to win, it's war, not some kind of tournament.

In reply to Michael Hood:

A proportionate response is not about winning; it is a warning aimed at achieving de-escalation. 

In reply to Andsomemore:

No, you didn’t.

My point - which you skipped over entirely - was that invading Gaza was not necessary to protect people in Israel.  As we’ve seen they have immense air defence capabilities, and they could choose to further fortify and defend the land border.

Once you commit to a land war, yes, it’s a disaster with a lot of civilian death.

But you have not made the case that a land war was necessary to protect people in Israel.

If you don’t/can’t/won’t make that case, then trying to justify the scale of impact of the land war is not relevant.

Is that what they call passive aggressive?

I’ll share the top 2 from my list, but I do so warily as you have dodged my question about if the land war in any way secure people in Israel?   Could that not be done by securing their modest land border with Gaza and using their almost unbelievable air defence capabilities, whilst perusing a peaceful solution that doesn’t fuel decades more hatred?

1. Secure their borders
2. Use diplomatic and intelligence means to get hostages back (you keep justifying the use of wide spread levelling of civilian infrastructure - that’s not good for hostages)

”Proportionate” isn’t a dozen eyes for an eye.  The key question his not what’s proportionate but what’s appropriate.

In reply to Michael Hood:

A question all the more cutting for what we now know was credibly shared with them from western intelligence agencies before the event.  

It doesn’t. It’s already invited direct attack from Iran - which was probably only stopped so successfully because of the level of force deployed from western nation’s ships in the Red Sea.  The scale and ugliness of international protests makes it clear the fires of hatred are well and truly stoked.   Despite 6 months of destruction, Hamas launched rockets from Gaza in to Israel this week.  

How many examples are there in the modern era of a lasting peace coming from escalatory warfare?

In reply to Andsomemore:

This is interesting - there's been very little coverage of tunnels, despite maps showing where they are believed to be at the start of the conflict. Is this because the tunnel network isn't as extensive or because after all the fighting and destruction the IDF still haven't been able to destroy or capture the tunnels?

How have they been clear about this? I don't follow MEMRI and the like these days, so what statements and from whom do support this?

In reply to Andsomemore:

Most see that as the only armed resistance possible. When you have a country that is only armed with some ancient rocket launchers and fertiliser rockets against the fourth most powerful army in the world, what do you think Palestine's armed resistance can manage? 

Are you saying the United Nations is backing Hamas?

That hatred has been bred over the last one hundred years. Jews lived reasonably peacefully in arab lands prior to this. 

What you're basically saying in your post is that all Palestinians want Jews to die and that the UN is training them. Do you have any idea how dangerous those ideas are (and how unlikely)

You see this rewriting of history is typical. Israel invaded it's neighbour during the Suez crisis in a plan drawn between Israel, UK and US to overthrow Nasser. Egypt reacted, Israel refused peacekeepers on it's land (UNEF) and kept provoking Egypt. Eventually Egypt blocked the straits of Tiran and Israel decided to pre-emptively destroy the whole of Egypts military and take over it's land. 

Who started that war? Who invaded Israel?

So here's the problem. They arrived knowing the situation they were coming into and instead of trying to live peacefully within it's bounds, they repeatedly acted provocatively and at each provoked reaction, took advantage.  They're the fourth most powerful military country in the world backed by the number One. They could manage that land they were assigned peacefully if they wished.

Likewise - it's an incredibly complex situation. If you want a very studied view, read Chomsky's "On Palestine". Regardless of perceptions of Chomsky's opinions, his facts are irrefutable.

In reply to timparkin:

That's as much as a gross simplification and distortion of the the history as you are accusing the other bloke of. Who is "they" in this case? The pre war Zionists? The pre war refugees from early stage European fascism? The post war survivors of the Holocaust? The Sephardim and Mizrahi communities thrown out of their ancestral Mid East and North African homelands? The western socialist secular people who went to join this new social democratic state?

In reply to Michael Hood:

Because one day the war will end, and, unless they go for extermination of all Palestinians, Israelis will have to live alongside the surviving relatives of people their armed forces have killed, for generations to come. The more civilians the IDF kill, the deeper that pool of hatred will be- and it will be personal hatred, not just abstract cultural or ideological hatred, and fuelling a desire for revenge. The population of Gaza and the West Bank is growing faster than the IDF can kill them- does Israel really want to be surrounded by an ever larger number of people who really do want their destruction, as a real outcome, driven by visceral fury rooted in grief, rather than it just being a political slogan?

And, because Israel needs support from allies, and will continue to do so into the future. Support for providing military support for Israel in the US has collapsed in the under 50s. Across the world, a generation of young people is growing up watching horror being visited on children in Gaza night after night. The utter horror of Hamas’ atrocities last October are being completely overshadowed by the nightly parade of suffering inflicted by the IDF. Even if this was justifiable in the context of achieving military objectives, the optics are catastrophic. The young people watching this across the West will be the policy makers of the next generation. Will they back Israel the way the current generation have? If they don’t, then how much will seeking to distract from the abject failure of the current Israeli administration to protect its citizens cost future Israelis?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm aware of a lot of the consequences of responding beyond what might be considered proportionate, but those are post facto reasons. I don't see any pre facto reasons - if someone attacks you, whatever force is necessary to stop them (ever) attacking you again seems to be the sensible pre facto starting position (which might then get modified by ongoing or post facto considerations).

If (hypothetically) Hamas was situated in an area with zero civilian population, would there be any calls for Israel to respond in a proportionate manner or would any response be acceptable.

In reply to wintertree:

What's this "ugliness" of which you speak?

In reply to Michael Hood:

I think if Hamas sat themselves in the middle of the desert, and challenged the IDF to a fight,  there would be few that would shed a tear over their subsequent annihilation.

But that’s never going to happen. Israel has to deal with the world as it finds it, and in that world, of course Hamas doesn’t present itself for obliteration.
 

And in dealing with that world, it changes that world. Currently, Israel seems to me to be adopting tactics which maximise the likelihood of a disastrous outcome for it in the future- creating a generation of Palestinians with literally nothing to live for except revenge, and enabling itself to be portrayed on television around the world, night after night, month after month, as pitiless oppressors, with the resulting corrosion of the support it should have.

As to stopping future attacks- Israel already has sufficient might to ensure the events of October 23 should never have happened; it has missile defences that can take down hundreds of more sophisticated missiles fired at once, and one of the most powerful armies in the world. Inflicting grotesque misery and suffering on Gaza today won’t make Israel safer tomorrow if all of that technological and resource advantage is squandered the way it was last year. 
 

How do you see this ending? The problem as far as I can see is that the minute the war ends, then the next minute the consensus in Israel over how to respond next falls to pieces and it has to confront the festering fault lines in Israeli society, between the progressive democracy that gives us transgender Eurovision winners, and religious fundamentalists who appear to be fascistic in their actions… and it will mean the end of the career of senior military and intelligence figures  on whose watch the abomination of October 7th happened; and potentially prosecution for Netanyahu. When the fate of the most powerful people in the country is bound up in ensuring the war doesn’t end, to avoid the reckoning that will bring, how does it end? And  what allies will Israel have left by then?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Here are two alternative arguments to your point:

a) Today’s policymakers are perfectly old enough to know about the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which the IDF was responsible for even though it did not commit it. It was probably more horrible (not that ranking these things isn’t distasteful). And of course very little effect in the west.

b) Western democratic support for Israel is also a function of Iranian action. If Iran is still chasing regional hegemony through the judicious use of force in twenty years, then today’s protestors turned tomorrow’s policymakers may be faced with a difficult choice. Something along the lines of support Israel as our proxy in the region, or see problems with shipping. Faced with a very unpopular bout of inflation due to goods supply issues, or letting Israel do our dirty work and looking the other way, well our living standards are going to take precedence.

I don’t totally disagree with what you’re saying, but there isn’t necessarily a straight line from here to there. 
 

Oh, and an alternative to the permanent well of Palestinian hatred point. Japan is pretty pro-American and the Americans nuked them. Twice. As well as firebombing their cities into ash. So it’s not a given that great violence leads to permanent enmity. I really don’t think such a thing is going to happen here, but it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s not necessarily a given. 

In reply to timparkin: 

He's citing this: 

"Germany in November 2023 froze funding for UNRWA following findings indicating that UNRWA's teaching materials were glorifying Jihad and teaching hate and anti-Semitism.[183]:

The US and UK have also paused funding by the way. 

Probably better to support UNICEF as they also have a Gaza appeal, but have a broader remit than only providing aid to one faction which should make them less susceptible to being hijacked by Hamas.  

In reply to seankenny:

But they weren’t broadcast into people’s living rooms around the world on a nightly basis for months. Even the Iraq war didn’t cover the effects on the civilian population in this way - we knew that what was happening in Fallujah was bad, but I don’t remember seeing it as it was happening like this. This feels different to anything that’s gone before; and if the future security of my nation relied on it being tomorrow’s chip papers, rather than a defining event that will shape perceptions for a generation, I wouldn’t want to be relying on reactions to previous situations.

Yes, that’s true, to a point- but- disruption to shipping so far has been as a result of Israel’s actions- so I don’t think the ‘bulwark against instability, needing to be supported come what may’ argument is borne out by events.

Not a given, for sure. It’s the wider context, and multi generational nature of the conflict that’s the problem here, and the one sided nature of the casualties. People don’t want to live consumed by hatred, happy to die if that might take a few of the enemy with them. Give Palestinians a future that is more attractive than death in armed conflict, and I imagine most will take it. But the more people who have suffered loss directly, the harder it is to step away from the abyss. Currently both Israel and Palestinians seem locked in a race to jump over the edge dragging the other with them.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I pretty much agree with all in your post of 14:38 (your response to "if Hamas...")

Once this war ends, or at least reaches some kind of static position, then we will see what kind of internal repercussions happen within Israel. I think we're several months away from that though.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I’ve a book of photos by Don McCullin on my bookshelf which covers many of the conflicts of the 70s and early 80s. Photos that appeared in national newspapers, and if anything they are more horrific than many of the images I’ve seen recently. Yes, Iraq was a bit more hidden, but also the violence there was very very different, driven in large part by militias - so it’s rather like saying mafia violence is less shocking because it takes place in secret. I think saying “this is different to anything that’s gone before” is just present bias rather than a sober acknowledgment of how images of war have shaped public perception and then policy. 
 

I think Israelis probably aren’t getting how their actions are perceived, but as for the idea that we’re in a completely new era of how the public perceive conflict, I just don’t buy it. 

You’re talking events of the past few weeks, rather than over the longer term. Note that I didn’t say “bulwark against instability”, but rather bulwark against Iran. Which is a bit different, ie the hope is Iran leaves shipping lanes alone and pursues its ambitions elsewhere. 

But in cases where states gave up very violent foreign policy, such as Japan and Germany, the casualties really were very one sided (though not with respect to Germany vs USSR obviously). Sometimes, in the case of overwhelming force, people do just give up. I suspect the same happened after the 1857 Indian Rebellion - the reality of British firepower led to the peaceful approach of the Indian Congress. So there are precedents, if you want to look for them, and one can imagine possibilities for tomorrow that aren’t stillborn by the actions taken today.

In reply to seankenny:

I don’t think the actual violence in Gaza is unique or unprecedented, far from it- but I would say there’s a world of difference from seeing still photos in a newspaper, to watching an unarmed civilian shot dead by a sniper, or maimed children bring brought into an overwhelmed hospital, on the main news bulletin, and similar events the next night, and the next, for months. And worse on social media, a carefully curated horror show, updating live on your phone wherever you are. I really don’t think we know what effect that’s going to have, my sense is that it would be perilous in the extreme to underestimate it. 
 

I don’t think Iran would directly target shipping lanes, that would trigger a direct military conflict with the West- but I don’t dispute the counterbalance to Iran argument, the question is at what point do the downsides to supporting Israel outweigh that? Is there a limit? When does public opinion in the West force governments to distance themselves? 
 

And I don’t think the examples you give are directly relevant to whether enough brutality will cause the Palestinians to give up here. Germany and Japan did not emerge from WW2 to conditions of ongoing oppression, they were rebuilt with huge investment. The aftermath of WW1 In Germany shows that poor treatment by the victor of the vanquished just provides the seeds of the next conflict. 
 

Will Israel massively invest in Gaza and help its people engage in an economic miracle which will nullify the past? It would be nice to think so, but I’m not betting the mortgage on it

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Do you not think Iran’s main reason for expending a small fraction of their stocks was so that the Chinese frigate in the Red Sea could study every cutting edge interceptor in the US arsenal?   Israel is the excuse not the real driver, perhaps.

I am far from hopeful that cooling this off in the middle east is going to affect China’s increasingly bold moves through its increasingly vassal states. 

Bigger picture I totally agree with your last few posts.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

 

Oh I remember seeing unarmed Palestinians being shot by snipers back in the late 90s. Or similar atrocities in Sarajevo, which were televised frequently. And check out some of the footage that American TV crews made in Vietnam, its visceral stuff. I think you’re massively overestimating the added impact. 

 

How solid is the public’s grasp of policy? I asked one pro-Palestinian supporter on here to put some numbers on the claim that the U.K. government gives aid to Israel. I just couldn’t find any, and he didn’t have a number to give me. Sure, we sell them stuff, but we don’t give them it for free, which is what aid is, right? If there were a good figure then campaigning groups would use it all the time, and they don’t. So without seeing any better evidence (if you have it, I’ll check it out) I can only assume this much touted policy doesn’t actually exist. 

  

Well, you’ve just pointed out why I do think that massive investment in Palestine may be enough to overcome the inter-generational hatred which everyone assumes is a given. 
 

No, but the Gulf States, EU and US might. 

In reply to seankenny:

Although the US government was worried enough to ban tiktok.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I actually think this is what Israel should have been doing in the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 - reduce any disparity in living standards, introduce economic prosperity - support for armed resistance would IMO have been massively reduced because people who are "comfortable" have something to lose.

Of course this is easy to say in hindsight, may be too late now.

In reply to seankenny:

Maybe. I think you are underestimating it… and the added impact of social media delivering unverified content to phones, tuned by algorithms to suppress contrary material, to people who may not be getting wider context from legacy media. 
 

The Vietnam reporting you mention contributed to a decisive change in American attitudes to that conflict- with greater fragmentation in the media landscape and the opportunity to disappear down rabbit holes feeding one side of a complicated picture, interacting with existing antisemitism, I think it would be complacent in the extreme to assume it will all ‘blow over’.

Does that matter? People don’t react to the detail of policy, or even the reality if it- plenty Tory MPs are happy to lean into conspiracy bollox about 15 minute cities that bears no relation to anything real, because enough of their supporters believe it. The entire Brexit campaign was a triumph of invention over reality, but it’s had very real consequences. People will react to what they think is happening, real or not, and politicians still have to respond.

Yes I agree entirely. Palestinians aren’t born as monsters, with hatred of Jews written in their DNA. A Marshall Plan for Palestine would be a star; but it would need to be accompanied by other things- rolling back settlements on the West Bank, to create the potential for a functioning state in a future 2 state solution, prosecutions of settler violence to the full extent of the law. And tolerating setback within immediate and massive escalation. I’d love to see that; but it seems unlikely at present. 

In reply to TobyA:

Just read about Plan Dalet for a start. Ben Gurion's plan is well documented. Then read about the start of the six day war (and the way Israel ignored attempts at peacekeeping and invaded it's neigbour - a defensive action of course, it's always defensive) and the hundreds of thousands of refugees caused by it. There's a long history of 'defensive colonialism', initially backed by the UK and then backed by the US. 

But of course, it's easy to rewrite history and make the aggressor (fourth strongest military in the world) come across as 'only defending themselves'. 

I despise the way that Hamas has carried out its actions and the way they manipulate the populace of Gaza but I also despise the way that Israel and Zionism has caused so much pain for the occupants of the area in a way that provides so much material for Hamas to use to create hate.

In reply to FreshSlate:

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-resume-cooperation-unrwa-relief-age...

Germany paused it waiting on evidence from Israel that didn't arrive. 

https://www.unrwa.org/unrwa-claims-versus-facts-february-2024

In reply to Michael Hood:

Yes, people living comfortable lives with full stomachs are less likely to take up arms, and have more to lose when they do. 
 

Northern Ireland shows that decades-long resentments, injustices and armed struggle can be overcome and a more peaceful future is possible- but if the British government was bulldozing catholic housing in the Falls Road to make way for Loyalist “settlers”, and had built a wall around the Bogside, and used the Air Force to bomb it after the Brighton bombing, things might not have turned out so well. 
 

I hope that whatever reckoning in Israeli society follows the conflict leads to a more constructive future for all parties- and thanks for the civilised discussion, not easy on such a topic

In reply to Michael Hood:

Not indirectly funding Hamas might have helped as well. Netanyahu (and others) thinking that pitting Gaza against the West Bank would be more beneficial to Israel than allowing a unified Fatah to govern was deluded at best, reminiscent of Britain subdividing of the middle east and all the problems that caused.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I see a distinction between “straight reporting” of atrocities, and general misinformation by bad actors. The former has existed a long time and always been quite powerful, the later is the new bit. And of looking at the later then I agree with you, it’s very concerning. But that’s cos it’s bad information, not because images of horrible things are new. 

Of course. But reality must still be given it’s due sometime, which is why we have huge amounts of immigration despite Brexit. This is even more so in foreign policy, where the public’s grasp of events is pretty ropey. Politicians have to react a bit to what people think is happening, and a bit to what really is happening. 

No disagreement from me on any of that, especially with respect to the settlers. 

In reply to timparkin:

It depends on who you read about Plan Dalet though doesn't it? Some historians see it as a plan for ethnic cleansing others as a defence of the borders of the new state. Again there are serious arguments to be made on both sides.

In reply to TobyA:

From what I've read by Chomsky and David Tal, the best that could be said is that it was an illegal occupation made defensively which would be retracted once "operations" ended. Operations never ended though and more land was taken instead. The idea of defensive invasion is a common occurrence in Israeli actions, the border keeps moving and the need for defensive invasions continue. The Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research records the aftermath in a few different books. 

In reply to jonnie3430:

ha ha ha you've just shot yourself in the foot!!

You talk about "hostages" from Oct 7th, where do you think the 7,000 Palestinians came from, and are they not hostages?

Many of those have been held in military prisons without charge for years, what would you call them?

In reply to seankenny:

Not this again!! You keep bringing this up as an excuse, but it's total BS.

For a start "we" the British had a hand in creating the Cluster f**k in Palestine, so I'm invested.

The countries you've mentioned have had UN resolutions against them, AND then sanctions have been applied, this has never happened to Israel, no matter how many UN resolutions there have been!

Do you see how this is now different?

Also, you know nothing about what else I might, or might not, be concerned about or why it might be important to me.

But besides all of that, this has been going on for 76+ years, so isn't it about time we stopped letting people obfuscate and redirect efforts for peace by "whataboutery"?

Out of interest, what ration of Israeli to Palestinian deaths, do you think is acceptable? I think we're currently running around 1 to 12. In 2018 it was more like 1 to 100, the same in 2014.......

In reply to Cobra_Head:

We had a hand in creating many of today's flashpoints, from Kashmir to Haiti, which no one seems the least bit interested in. There have been repeated massacres of Christians in Nigeria this last year and prior, thousands killed, well over a million internally displaced people...not a peep. Yemen barely excites us. Iraq and Syria's borders exist in no small part because of the UK, yet Assad's daily activities don't seem to be of much interest. I could go on...

The idea that interest in Israeli/Palestinian politics stems from our involvement is an excuse.

Are you really saying if 100 years ago it had been Das Balfour Erklärung instead of The Balfour Declaration, this wouldn't be such a salient issue for you? That British post-Ottoman border drawing of the 1920s and Jewish migration is your special topic?

Is it not more likely that your political alignment and, with that, your chosen media, has a particular interest in Israel and in presenting the conflict a certain way? 

Israeli is the most cited against country at the UN. The General Assembly can reliably be expected, as an Arab/Muslim, voting bloc to castigate Israel at every opportunity. It is just as well every time they do so that sanctions aren't imposed. 

76 years? What happened to the 26 years before that?

Do you think it acceptable that Hamas can lob weaponry at Israel all day long, intentionally targeting civilians, but by your rationale Israel cannot respond? Because if it attacks virtually any military target, any site from which rockets are launched, it will almost certainty be attacking a civilian population? And perhaps that this is exactly what Hamas wants as, far from seeking to prevent civilian deaths, civilian deaths caused by the IDF are the best tool they have to keep public opinion turned against Israel.

In reply to Andsomemore:

The reason so many people are protesting the treatment of Palestinians is because

1) Israel is backed by our government (and the US) so we have a potential way of changing things. No amount of protesting on China will make a difference. 

2) The underdog - we see innocent people who live in an open prison being killed by the fourth most powerful country in the world.

3) 6 innocent women and children killed and 6 male adults killed for every supposedly legitimate target (I suspect the ratio is a LOT worse in reality). 

There are other issues but these are pretty significant. 

What form of resistance would be acceptable to you? 

Gaza is all civilian, there isn't really a military base (for bloody obvious reasons). Anywhere rockets are launched from will be in a civilian location. And you do know that the rockets they're using don't have GPS in them. Otherwise I'm sure they would aim at military targets. 

The French resistance had the same issue, the Irish had the same issue, nearly every 'resistance' has this issue. 

I don't agree with members of Hamas committing atrocities, I don't agree with Hamas' stated policies, I don't agree with Israel's response. However I'm also not sure what I would do if I was in the same situations as the people who live in Gaza? Would I take part in armed resistance? Would members of my family being killed (including my ancestors) instil a hatred of those responsible? Would the videos of Israeli's celebrating their deaths make me hate the whole population? I don't know but I think it would make me more than a little irritated.

In reply to Andsomemore:

You’ve continued to ignore my point to you that Israel’s response appears counter productive for protecting ongoing civilians in Israel vs securing their borders and airspace.  Which they are perfectly capable of doing without killing so many civilian partners, children and relatives that they’re locking in decades of spiteful hate against their own nation.

They can respond, and their intent, humanity and effectiveness at protecting their own people can be judged against their response.

In reply to Andsomemore:

Al Jazeera journalist Richard Sanders recently explained that “Once you have tainted them with the stain of antisemitism, you have facilitated the dehumanisation of Palestinians, which is the psychological prerequisite for Israeli brutality towards them and of Western complicity in that brutality.“

So don't be fooled by Andsomemore's attempts at smearing Palestinians and spreading disinformation. What lies behind the Palestine/Israel conflict is not antisemitism but over 75 years of expulsion and oppression, over 55 years of brutal occupation, and the implementation of the world's most sophisticated system of ethnic dominance.

I have been to the West Bank many times and twice since the 7 October attacks, and even now I do not see any deepseated or widespread antisemitism there. Palestinians are very aware that not all Jews support the Israeli state. There is, of course, immense anger at the sheer depravity of the present war in Gaza, but this is directed at Zionist warmongers, not Jews; Biden as much as Blinken, Sunak as much as Shapps.

In the 1990s, 20 years before they revised their charter, Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas, said: "We don't hate Jews and fight Jews because they are Jewish. They are a people of faith and we are a people of faith, and we love all people of faith. But if my brother […] takes my home and expels me from it, I will fight him. 

Khaled Mashal, chairman of the Hamas political bureau said in 2006 “Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. [...] Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us. Our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

“If you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.”

Even the aim of October 7 was not to ‘exterminate all Jews’. It was a vicious and murderous attempt to disrupt the status quo of endless siege and occupation and was born from desperation. It came only after multiple attempts to find a solution through political, legal and civic means and low-intensity armed struggle, culminating in the 2018 massacre of 223 Palestinians during the Great Marches of Return by sniper fire.

This is historical revisionism at its finest! Jordan has only ever been considered “East Palestine” by extreme Zionists trying to claim all the land from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea as a Jewish state. The British mandate of 1922 very clearly divides the region into 2 separate territories - Palestine to the west of the Jordan river and Trans-Jordan to the east. The 1947 UN partition plan only ever concerned the area referred to as Palestine in this document.

Also, this Jew vs Arab cleavage is an artificial construct designed to remove the Palestinian people from the equation. Before the creation of Israel, Jewish Arabs lived throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The Arab language and culture can incorporate many different religions and ethnicities; Jewish ethnicity can incorporate many cultures and languages. Ben Gvir’s grandparents on his father’s side were Jewish Arabs from Iraq; his mother was Kurdish. The conflict is not between Arabs and Jews but between the state of Israel and the people of Palestinian.

This is absolutely not a ‘de facto ban’ on Jews. The countries Andsomemore is referring to do not recognise the state of Israel and so don’t accept Israeli passports as a legitimate travel document. Jews travelling on any other passport can enter them. Only about half of the world’s Jews are eligible for an Israeli passport anyway. And no passport identifies its holder as Jewish, not even an Israeli one!

Popular support for the Palestinian cause really isn’t questionable in Jordan and Egypt. However, both the Jordanian monarchy and the Egyptian presidency are highly dependent on Western support to remain in power, and this restrains governmental support for Palestine. Win-win for the dominant power structures; big lose for the Palestinians.

The same can be said of most of the planet pre-20th century. Statehood is mostly a European concept that we have recently imposed on the world via colonisation. However, now that it has become the basic unit of international law, it is vital that Palestinians can benefit from it. Thankfully, this has proven to be the case with the recent ICC rulings.

Andsomemore is the first and only person I’ve heard voicing the idea that Jews cannot be Palestinian!

This is all upside down. Eradication came in the form of the Nakba which was the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians from what became Israel by Zionist militias. Prior to the 1948 war between Israel and its neighbours, these militias had already massacred the inhabitants of Deir Yassin and driven many Palestinians from their homes and land.

The abomination that is antisemitism is predominantly a European concept. Balfour himself was a hideous antisemite. His idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was a solution to what he saw as a Jewish problem in Britain. The Palestinians have been paying the price of his racism for almost 80 years.

In reply to Fatch101:

Or, perhaps it was born from the desire of the emerging axis-of-evil* who work to destabilise the west, and it was so successful because of the levels of desperation in those they recruited from.  The same axis that is massively disrupting Red Sea traffic, that attacked Israel with ballistic and cruise missiles, that is finelljng lethal weapons to Russia for use against Ukraine, that are conducting sabotage attacks in European nations and cyber attacks against US CNI, and who seem to be having awful luck dragging anchors across subsea cables.

(*) an axis for whom you advocate strongly when arguing Ukraine should concede territory to Russia, when you seek to deny the scale of Russian atrocities against Ukraine.

The misinformation trolls are out in force on both sides of this one….

In reply to wintertree:

Isn't that what they were doing before? They had the Iron Dome, a complete blockade, a massive wall as well as various patrols and checkpoints all around the strip.

Is the idea that some sort of Trump-style wall will keep them out? Gaza has been compared to an 'open-air prison' due to the current measures, now you're suggesting that they're locked down even more. It's not realistic.

Gaza is going to need all sorts of heavy equipment (like the bulldozers that were used to breach the wall) and materials to rebuild. I don't think Israel can cut all of that off indefinitely. Hospitals and schools will need to be rebuilt but if you leave Hamas in power that a good chunk of that gets siphoned off for another October 7th attempt.

The military objective is to dismantle Hamas, the objective is not and nor should it be to kill some sort of multiple of the Israeli citizens killed and walk away. 

In reply to FreshSlate:

The air defence part did its job, but the land system appears to have been a massive failure.  If it had been properly resourced/staffed that would not have been the case.  Compared to the size of the IDF, the invading force was only unstoppable because the power wasn’t where it needed to be to stop it.

Far from it, the current system should have been firm with appropriate distribution of forced and readiness, all of which could have been maintained or at least primed by the clear warnings from various western intelligence agencies in the run up.

I agree.  

The only way I’m suggesting they’re “locked down more” is that the current measures be manned enough to stop armed hordes crossing, I’m not calling for a single increased measure inside Palestine or against the civilians there.  

There is no shortage of Israeli media analysis of the Israelis failures that allowed October 7th to happen.  Without their failures, they should have been perfectly able to contain the violent attacks.

eg

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-05-09/ty-article/.premium/disdain-...

In reply to wintertree:

I mean that's the classic advantage of being able to choose where to strike, being able to meticulously analyse the enemies weakpoints in their defence for years. This is something that has gone on from ancient history to cyber security. If you're willing to bide your time and you're determined enough you will break through. 

For many even the air defence is a failure as they're spending hundreds of millions to shoot down rockets that cost a few hundred pounds each. Billions spent building rocket shelters into every other building. If the US withdraws defence aid Isreal will have to become a lot more aggressive as those Iron Dome missiles won't last forever.

This is the thing with intelligence. There's lots and lots of it. Of course the key is knowing what intelligence to act upon. You stop 9 terror attacks and one gets through. You don't act upon 10,000 false warnings but one of those you should have. The police and MI6 had intelligence relating to the Manchester Arena bombers and failed to act on it. 

Surveillance and acting on intelligence is curtailing their rights. Having a massive border wall patrolled and a exclusion zone zealously enforced is curtailing their rights.

Would you allow more goods to enter Gaza? How about weapons and equipment for a police force? How about fertiliser?

We're still paying in our freedoms for the aftermath of 9/11 every time we walk through an airport and we're from the UK. That's not just intelligence being relied upon. 

I don't have a Haaretz account and it's pay walled. Do you? I've read a little and it sounds like a age old story of complacency, defence cuts, and an over reliance of technology in some places. I'm certain that Israel will not allow this to happen for a very long time, but they will let their guard down again. It's inevitable. 

In reply to FreshSlate:

The Gaza Strip is 25 miles long.  

The IDF has around 170,000 active personnel.

On a large land border seen as low risk, yes.  On a tiny land border known to be a high risk…. Not so much, if it’s well defended.

Being uneconomical doesn’t make it a failure, especially when third party nations put the resource in.

Yet the main factor likely to make that happen is widespread commission of atrocities against Palestinian civilians by the IDC.  

Further, Israel is a leading developer of laser based air defence which removes the dependence on very expensive interceptor middles and will cope with the low tech stuff coming out of Gaza.  

They can either cross the border, or not.  This didn’t need an exclusion zone, it needed boots on the Israeli side of the - very short - land border.

WTF does that have to do with anything I’ve said about Israel protecting its shared border against incursions?

Most of the food in Gaza is imported not grown with fertiliser.   You’re not making much sense.

So you justify the deaths of 35,000 civilians (and rising) and the destruction of half a territories buildings because it’s inevitable the people with supports from some of the worlds richest nations will become complacent?

It’s beyond f*****k obvious Israel needs to defend that incredibly short border - with their giant military - until a lasting peace is reached.

The UK didn’t neglect the border with Ireland during the troubles.  F we had and we’d then suffered an October 7th scale atrocity, I doubt peace would yet have been reached.

Arguing complacency is inevitable is pretty weak IMO.

In reply to Fatch101:

New account today? Sock puppet?

Your arguments are as blinkered and one sided as those you're arguing against.

The situation is complex and it is not a case of one or the other. Both sides and arguments can be true just from different perceptions of the same events.

In reply to wintertree:

It didn't need warnings from other security services, within the IDF itself, warnings of patterns of behaviour and changes near the border within Gaza were given by the IDF's observers. These observers were all (or nearly all) young women doing their national service. Their reports over some time were either ignored, not taken seriously enough, or just weren't put together properly because all the signs of an impending attack and what form it would take were there - even the BBC did an article on this after 7th October.

Unfortunately, being on the front line, and very lightly armed, as far as I'm aware, those on duty at the time did not survive 7th October.

In reply to wintertree:

I have previously wondered exactly how the UK would have reacted if the IRA had killed over 8000 people on the UK "mainland". It certainly wouldn't have been pretty.

In reply to wintertree:

Normally I agree with much of what you post, but I can't help thinking that your "they should have defended the border better" is dangerously close to a "she shouldn't have worn that short skirt / walked through the park at night" line of reasoning.

Israel are by no means an entirely innocent party in the long history of this awful conflict, but it's unquestionable that they wouldn't be in Gaza right now if Hamas had not carried out their horrific attack on Oct 7th and we'd not now be recoiling from the thousands of innocent lives lost on both sides.

It seems almost impossible to see a resolution just now, but I'm pretty sure building bigger walls isn't the answer. I thought progressive thinking was about building bridges, not walls?

In reply to Dexter:

If we all agreed all the time this would be a most dull place…

To be clear, what I’m saying is that IMO the best way to protect people in Israel from Hamas after Oct 7th is by securing their border going forwards, not by levelling half of Gaza, killing tens of thousands and stoking another generation of weaponisable hatred against Israel.

Another poster then suggested it would be to hard to defend the border an invasion was the only option.  At this point I have to make the - very well made by many - case that the border could have been better defended.

I dislike your short skirt analogy I’m afraid - if you have a border against somewhere with a large hostile presence, you defend it.  It’s perfectly reasonable *within the boundaries of a nation with law and order* to expect people to be able to dress as the please without consequence.  There is no  comparable lawn and order here.

To be clear, your skirt analogy is victim blaming.  I am not blaming the victims - the people the oct 7th terrorists killed.  I am suggesting the people in charge of border security failed, and that fixing that failure is the best way to protect people without fuelling more hatred driven terrorism.   I don’t see the senior military and political people charged with securing the land border against a well known aggressor as victims.  

Indeed.  Both sides escalate and the situation worsens.  Until someone wises up…

As I said to another poster, it doesn’t need a bigger wall it needs their current forces deployed to protect the border with their current infrastructure.  This isn’t an immense hard to access in places border like the US another poster compared it to.  It’s a 25 mile long land border with excellent access.

Yes, and as long as Hamas is able to attack and provoke Israel we’re going to continue to see 10 dead Palestinians for every dead Israelis.  What kind of a bridge does that build?

In reply to wintertree:

Ah ok, I should have followed the discussion more closely before wading in.

Isn't this no different to saying if there are rapists operating in the city then act defensively - don't go in the park at night and don't wear short skirts?

We have law and order here. Sadly we also have victims of rape. Furthermore, there is a natural law operating in the long history of this conflict which Hamas are fully aware of - if you attack Israel then you can expect a visit from the IDF.

Fixing the border would not prevent Hamas from improving its terror infrastructure within Gaza and being supplied with the type of weaponry that could cause Israel real harm. Setting aside the legality and proportionality of the invasion, it has made Israel much safer, both now and for the foreseeable future. Hamas forces and capabilities have been neutralised and the smuggling tunnels in the Philadelphi Corridor are being discovered and destroyed on a scale far greater than the Egyptians were achieving. Hamas are going to struggle to mount another 7th Oct for a long time now.

Gaza has been a hate factory for decades. The idea that the invasion will fuel more hatred is kind of moot when such hatred already exists in buckets. Indeed there is some evidence to suggest that the invasion has made Gazans more aware of the futility of the armed struggle, with support for it falling since the invasion and support for a two state solution increasing. See attached charts, taken from here - https://pcpsr.org/en/node/969

My own belief, which won't be popular on here, is that the Palestinians need to accept the existence of Israel in some form or other and work towards convincing ordinary Israelis that they are no longer a threat, interested in reaching an accommodation through dialogue rather than armed conflict. That would drastically reduce the support for hardliners within Israel and increase support from the international community. There are already many people within Israel sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians with whom bridges can be built. Simplistic, fanciful and naive I know, but Israeli attitudes are never going to soften whilst Hamas are committing the kinds of atrocities we saw on Oct 7th and promising more to come.

In reply to wintertree:

This idea that the Palestinians would docilely accept their 75-year long subordination if it weren't for Iranian influence shows a huge lack of understanding of the dynamics on the ground. Iran does provide arms and training to Palestinian resistance groups - much like we supported local and foreign fighters in Afghanistan in the 1980s against the Soviet Union - but the desire to resist the occupation is 100% home grown.

Are the Houthis really the bad guys in this conflict? They have very successfully targeted commercial and economic interests rather than human life and have made it clear they are acting to prevent genocide in Gaza and will cease their attacks when the destruction stops. A small country standing up to the world's most powerful militaries in order to stop a genocide in which they are all complicit is the stuff of which legends are made. Sorry your Amazon order arrives a few days late.

Let's not forget that Iran's missile attack successfully targeted two of the best-defended military airfields on the planet. If they had chosen to strike military targets in Tel Aviv they could have done so easily, but there would have been massive collateral damage in the civilian population. If only Israel could demonstrate the same restraint in Gaza!

The genocide and war crimes happening in Gaza should be making you question your whole world view of a Moral West vs an Axis of Evil. The Israeli state and its leaders, an integral part of your Moral West, are presently under investigation for genocide and war crimes by the ICJ and ICC, and we are arming and supporting the very acts under investigation. The square peg of your simplistic world view can only fit into the round hole of geopolitical reality with the use of a large hammer; or a truncheon in the case of the student protests.

Can you point to even a single piece of misinformation in my previous comment?

In reply to Michael Hood:

This is my only account.

Can you justify this comment? I am happy to discuss my previous post point by point.

This argument is a popular rhetorical tool designed to prevent people from supporting the Palestinian cause. Indeed, when I went to Israel and Palestine for the first time, I fully expected to find a complex, nuanced situation. The reality on the ground was shockingly simple; there is an oppressor and a subjugated population. The relationship between the 2 sides changed brutally and dramatically on the 7 October, but only for a few hours.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Pretty sure we wouldn't have flattened Derry!

In reply to Fatch101 (oureed):

Mate, I’m not going to respond to you because your misreading or misinterpreting much of what I wrote to the best of your ability.

I saw your last accounts deleted post; did you report UKC to the UN for not letting you correct the “misinformation”?  I ask as emailing the UN is now apparently your go to point for solving disagreements on these forums…

In reply to Dexter:

I’m not following up on you “victim blaming” discussion because, as I said, the victims here are not the same as the people how carry the blame.  So the analogy is broken and adds only noise to the discussion.

It would not, but it buys time to work towards less violent solutions.  There is no argument not to make the border function as intended that I am aware of.

I agree, but if attitudes harden they can do so in less disastrously consequential ways perhaps.

In reply to Dexter:

I was in Palestine a couple of weeks ago and on 2 occasions came into contact with illegal settlers in the West Bank. Nothing in their attitude or actions suggested these people are ready to accept a Palestinian presence there, never mind a state!

In reply to Fatch101:

It's the votes of ordinary Israelis that count, not the intransigence of illegal settlers. If the Knesset legislates to evict then the IDF will enforce, as has happened in the past. Will all illegal settlements be cleared? Probably not. But the armed struggle is a dead end and the longer it continues the more illegal settlements will be built and normalised by ordinary Israelis who will give up on the prospects for peace.

In reply to Dexter:

The 'democratically-elected' Israeli government includes Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, two illegal settlers who live in the West Bank. Ben Gvir is Minister of National Security, Smotrich is Minister of Finance and de facto governor of the West Bank. Smotrich has written a manifesto in which he says Palestinians have 3 options: leave their country, accept subjugation or be killed. Prime Minister Netanyahu has boasted many times about preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Hamas is actually less radical than any of those three elected Israeli officials with regards to a 2 state solution!

In reply to wintertree:

Never quite understood the point this argument is trying to make. Sourcing information from a UN monitoring agency sure beats relying on Western-intelligence funded 'media' outlets!

In reply to Fatch101:

The point is (a) it was a tragically sad thing to do and (b) you totally misunderstood or misrepresented what they told you.

An outlet whose 2023 story you pointed at to make your case, then you simultaneously denied their follow up 2024 story when it broke your point as events had further worsened.

Chess with pigeons gets dull after a while. 

In reply to Fatch101:

I'm not going to disagree with you on this bit. I think a lot of our thinking is hampered by lumping the West Bank and Gaza together. They really are different in what's happening there even if the Palestinian inhabitants have the same roots, and ultimately I think they're going to need separate solutions - trying to sort out both at once in the same way just isn't going to work.

The fundamental problem with the idealistic West Bank settlers (as opposed to those who were financially enticed into the West Bank) is that they are fundamentalists who fully believe that land is God given to them. That's going to be a difficult thing to get past, eventually going to cause all sorts of ructions within Israel.

When Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005(?), Gaza had a choice:

1. Put all the effort (& money) into making Gaza a better place for its inhabitants, encourage trade, behave more like a "responsible" nation state to gradually break down the barriers (not just physical) with Israel as trust becomes established and gradually be given more areas of control and self-determination...
2. Continue the armed struggle

I'm not saying that the man in the street was asked but Gaza chose 2, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the various actions and decisions on both sides since then, the situation today is a result of that choice.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Is it the idealistic or the financially induced illegal Israeli West Bank settlers who shoot unarmed innocent Palestine residents? 

In reply to Michael Hood:

The West Bank Palestinians under Fatah chose to make peace with and recognise the state of Israel. In return, Israel committed to giving them full control over their territory. What subsequently happened is that Israel consolidated its occupation, stepped up its construction of illegal settlements, annexed more land and increased its control over the population. Hamas predicted this would happen.

As I said in a previous post, the Palestinians tried all legal, political and civic avenues in their attempt to gain Western recognition of their statehood. Tragically, it is their recent use of extreme violence which has brought them closer than ever to achieving this objective.

In reply to wintertree:

Not intentionally, just lost in the list.

I have no clear answer on Israel's response. I'd love to come up with a workable alternative; surgical strikes, sanitized conflict, retreating to borders and simply locking the issue away.

But I opposed the troop surge in Iraq, US enclosure of Fallujah and Ramadi, and the Afghan invasion, as just a few examples, for much the same reasons more level-headed opponents of Israeli actions do. In hindsight I came to the conclusion I was naive to the levels of force required and therefore wrong on those as, despite the massive escalation, civilian deaths and utter destruction they brought, I think they were ultimately vindicated.

Easy to criticise from a distance, but we really have no idea what is going on in Gaza right now. There is a full-blown information war, with Israel saying very little and Hamas making hay out of every possible claim. I apply more scepticism now than ever before to anything coming out of Gaza. From the recent Rafah explosion (where I find the IDFs account credible) to the GHM's death toll figures (I've heard they're credible, but Al-Ahli was perhaps indicative, where their 500 deaths is apparently, according to the US, closer to 100, and where the claims of responsibility revealed much about who the honest brokers were) - only time will tell what is really true, and I may stand corrected. 

Hence I'm wary of calls to end the ground assault or backseat drive an ongoing military operation. And if we're shocked at what urban warfare looks like, we should be - the images we're being shown are what our TVs should be showing us about every conflict on the planet. Maybe then we would understand war better, be just as sufficiently vociferous and engaged about other conflicts, and realise why a strong military and >2% defence budget is necessary. 

Referring back to the Gaza polling, I'm afraid if 90% of Gazans don't perceive 7/10 as an atrocity and 70% support it outright, then in terms of avoiding spitefulness or our ability to influence Palestinian opinion, that horse has bolted decades ago and hatred is already well and truly baked into the system. Which has largely been my point - we underestimate the degree of raw anti-Israeli sentiment which exists irrespective of Israeli action. 

So no, while the images and numbers being thrown out of Gaza jar, I don't think I'm in a position to criticise Israel's military policy. Besides, my argument has really been aimed at those who question Israel's existence and borders and who cannot see the Israeli side of the argument.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Comparisons between the troubles in NI and Israel/Palestine are spectacularly misleading and ignorant. For the record all methods tried by all sides to “win” or “manage” the conflict in NI failed. Recognition and dialogue are the only solutions (and not disproportionate responses as you argued for earlier…)

In reply to Andsomemore:

That your posts repeatedly criticises the Palestinian people for not being appalled by the massacre on 7th Oct yet you’re also seeming completely standing behind the recent actions of the IDF and believing their accounts of their atrocities suggests that you’re not remotely interested in (or capable of) debate or reason on this topic

In reply to Michael Hood:

It's worse than that - one woman was threatened with a court martial if she bought any more intelligence about Hamas. Which leads to all sorts of odd conclusions.. 

In reply to Andsomemore:

See my 3rd sentence!

It's becoming boring when any mention of the Israeli government or the IDF, illicit veiled, or sometimes not so veiled accusations of AS.

People are being blown up and starved, you seem to think this is OK because it's happening elsewhere, and we shouldn't get to Isreal, until we've been around the world and made sure we've sorted the rest out first.

In reply to paulguy:

For a start we didn't "strategically" bomb whole swathes of Northern Ireland.

In reply to Andsomemore:

But this ISN'T Israel's side of the argument, you're conflating Israeli with Bibi, aren't we supposed to separate certain entities and groups, there are plenty of Israeli's who don't like what's going on and not just for selfish reasons.

Everyone's in a position to criticise Israel's military policy, because they're lying to us, they've been caught out lying to us a number of times. They shot three of their own hostages, they were being so careful and precise!!

They are preventing aid getting into Gaza. They said they'd cleared Hamas from northern Gaza and then prevented aid getting into there, "because of Hamas", WTF?

When this is all over, what do you think the 5 year old kid, who's lost all his family and home, is going to think of Israeli's.

The best question you could ask yourself is, what would you be doing if you'd been born in Gaza 20 years ago?

Ehud Barak, knew what he'd be doing.

In reply to paulguy:

Well if you read my post you've just replied to you'll see that I didn't make a comparison. I merely pondered how we'd have reacted to similar %age of deaths from terrorist action. Making a comparison would have required me to say something like "Israel has done X, we'd have done Y".

And re disproportionate responses, you've introduced another strawman. I didn't argue for them, I asked why everyone always cries out for a proportionate response, what's the reason for wanting them. And the response was basically so that post-conflict the consequences of that conflict are easier to deal with. Arguing for it would require something like "I think they should respond no-holds barred", I don't believe I said anything like that.

It's called reading & comprehension.

In reply to timparkin:

Didn't know that

In reply to paulguy:

Yes, excuse me if I'm cautious about the information we are receiving so try to bring some minority perspective to the discussion - one that goes against the default of IDF = evil.

Because good luck to anyone expressing solidarity with Israel right now in the UK. The flags I see on the streets are nearly all Palestinian ones. Flags that, while now accompanied by solemn chants of 'From the river to the sea', were mere hours after the 7/10 attacks waving jubilantly amidst car horns to far more cheerful chants of the same - up and down Oxford Street in our capital city. Where a relatively mainstream left-wing news site like The Canary is, unashamedly, publishing articles like this just days ago- https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2024/05/28/beheaded-babies-israel-gaza.... Where the likes of Francesca Albanese, representing the UN on matters of Gaza, dismisses the notion of anti-semitism being at play on 7/10.

I think we have a major problem with how justifiable and understandable support for a larger Palestinian state is aligning itself. 

Despite how in the Iraq war, where independent casualty counts were actually available, which could range in the same three-year period from 150,000 to 650,000 (then, over an extended six-year period drop back down to 100,000)...we all seem to know 35,000 Gazans have been killed.

In Iraq, reputable institutions couldn't decide if the actual figure was 1x, 10x, or 50x the average. 
But where the only source is Hamas...you know, the same organisation that deliberately killed over a thousand people in a single day (while claiming not to hate Jews but clearly intending to kill far far more)....we take their word as fact?
Figures that don't even distinguish between fighters and civilians, yet apparently good enough for us to know the IDF has killed more people than necessary? 
Where to even dare to question such things means you aren't pro-Palestine enough.

So as unpopular as it might be, I am more or less 'standing behind the IDF', as you put it. Because whatever I think of them, they are a hell of a lot more credible than Hamas and their excusers. 

Yes, I have no doubt whatsoever that there have been war crimes committed by the IDF. Those same bigoted West Bank settlers we have such an issue with are present in IDF units. So given the opportunity, in the relative lawlessness of a warzone, I'm sure they are loving the opportunity to kill anyone they come across. As will have others.

But the IDF, despite what Hamas and seemingly fashionable opinion would want you to think, remains a professional military force. They are not Hamas.

Hamas' military strategy is war crime. Civilians (Israeli and their own) are their target. On 7/10, it wasn't those West Bank settlers we hate and consider the flashpoint, that they went after. Their well-planned attack, several years in the making, targeted among other things, Kibutz and a music festival. They didn't care if they killed racist, bigoted, right-wing Jews...or left-wing, pro-Palestinian, Buddhist Israelis. Thai farmhands, elderly ladies who drive Palestinians to hospitals, kids...it made no difference. The politics don't matter. As long as Israel is Jewish and not entirely Palestinian (from the river to the sea) civilians, anyone, is the target.

I get they haven't released videos of their hostages dressed in orange jumpsuits, or shown footage of them beheading anyone with rusty knives or in flaming cages. Or perhaps it's because they were voted for and their operations appear to have been broadly supported. So they might not seem like ISIS. But they really are little different to ISIS. And if you are Jewish any distinction between the two really gets wafer thin. 

So in the credibility contest, I'm going with the IDF and Israel on this one.

If you read my previous, what I actually dared to say was that I am in no position to criticise the IDF strategy. And having spent years in the infantry and later the engineers, I might have a better idea than most about fighting in built-up areas. Yet I don't have the information to make that judgement so I'm really surprised so many others seem to. All I can do is judge the relative merits of the IDF v Hamas and express scepticism about Hamas (or Albanese) as impartial judges or sources of information for when the Israeli military has overstepped.

And I've said quite clearly above I am very much interested in the debate. That I have changed my own opinion before on which side is in the right on the issue of Palestine/Israel. That I don't have exhaustive knowledge on the history and am open to the discussion, even changing my mind. 

But if my responses lead to your reaction above, then I think a little more humility from the side who ceaselessly criticise Israel might not go amiss.