[News] Middle East conflict

[Zeberdi]

88 UN Aid workers killed since 07.10.23, in Israel's carefully targeted attacks on Hamas commanders.

MSN

www.msn.com

I’m still waiting for a tally of the proven Hamas paramilitary fighters they have killed that they think makes this a proportionate response where the ends justify the means? Are there any numbers of those being released?

• “…This brings the reported fatality toll since the start of the hostilities to 9,770 including 4,008 children and 2,550 women, according to the MoH in Gaza. About 2,260 others are reported missing in Gaza, including 1,270 children. Most are presumed to be trapped under rubble. On average, 134 children have been killed in Gaza every day since the start of the hostilities, based on the MoH figures.”.

• lAs of 3 November, according to Ministry of Health data, 2326 women and 3760 children have been killed in the Gaza strip, representing 67% of all casualties, while thousands more have been injured. This means that 420 children are killed or injured every day, some of them only a few months old.”

• “Separately, at least 150 health workers have been killed in Gaza – 16 while on duty – and 18 emergency-service workers for Gaza’s civil defence, according to the UN - More than 100 health facilities have been damaged.”

• “As of November 6, CPJ’s preliminary investigations showed at least 36 journalists and media workers were among an estimated 11,000 since the war began on October 7—with more than 9,700 Palestinian deaths in Gaza and the West Bank, and 1,400 deaths in Israel.”

Israel-Hamas war live: Gaza becoming a ‘graveyard for children’, UN chief says; 10,000 Palestinians killed, says Gaza health ministry

António Guterres warn ‘no one is safe’ as he repeats call for humanitarian ceasefire; over 4,000 children among the dead in Gaza

www.theguardian.com

Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war - Committee to Protect Journalists

Editor’s note: The list below is CPJ’s most complete account of journalist deaths in the war. Our database will not reflect many of these casualties until we have fully investigated the circumstances surrounding them. The Israel-Gaza war has taken a severe toll on journalists since Hamas...

cpj.org

Women and newborns bearing the brunt of the conflict in Gaza, UN agencies warn

Women, children and newborns in Gaza are disproportionately bearing the burden of the escalation of hostilities in the occupied Palestinian territory, both as casualties and in reduced access to health services.

www.who.int

 

[Hastings gull]

Um - you are the only one arguing that Israel had a military option not to respond to a terrorist attack on her own soil.

If you want to argue a theoretical antI- war stance that’s fine - we can all agree war is generally bad and it would be better if people didn’t do it.

How am I shutting down your debate though? Because I have corrected factual errors and pointed out some stereotyping and some factual inconsistencies in your argument? - are you sure you want to debate or are you trying to get someone to agree with you that Israel shouldn’t have killed the Hamas terrorists that invaded her soil and murdered 1500 or so people. I find that an extraordinary position to take and don’t agree with you. Nor would the majority of the world over and certainly not any Jewish person I can think of.

I can only reiterate the central argument from everyone on this thread has been to acknowledge that Israel has a right to defend herself - that meant opening fire on Hamas and a limited, proportional military response that did not target civilians- Israel’s response however has been horrific and against all laws of reason and convention.

So let’s agree to fundamentally disagree.

yes, I see what you are saying and in theory you are quite right. But in practice a limited proportional response, as you suggest, realistically will not destroy Hamas, who are more than happy, apparently, to use civilians as shields. I am old enough to clearly remember 1967, 1973 and the battles against Hezbollah -the one thing that has characterised all these wars is that the world always urges the Israelis to stop, once they get the upper hand, militarily. I don't profess to know the answers at all, other than to state, somewhat limply, that all sides are going to have to sit down and thrash out a solution, though the barbaric Hamas attacks and the Israeli retaliatory bombings, have surely made that more difficult, as the hatred intensifies.

 

[Zeberdi]

yes, I see what you are saying and in theory you are quite right. But in practice a limited proportional response, as you suggest, realistically will not destroy Hamas, who are more than happy, apparently, to use civilians as shields. I am old enough to clearly remember 1967, 1973 and the battles against Hezbollah -the one thing that has characterised all these wars is that the world always urges the Israelis to stop, once they get the upper hand, militarily. I don't profess to know the answers at all, other than to state, somewhat limply, that all sides are going to have to sit down and thrash out a solution, though the barbaric Hamas attacks and the Israeli retaliatory bombings, have surely made that more difficult, as the hatred intensifies.

Absolutely- and well put - I didn’t say a limited military response would destroy Hamas though!

(and a completely disproportionate one is not likely to either - not least for all the reasons previously discussed up thread + in that sense, @Wardy's twin is right, war, violence never solves anything but the laying down of arms has to be bilateral as it was in 1993 under the Oslo Accords.

 

[Wardy's twin]

My position is the same as it has always been - to defend the rights of both Israeli’s and Palestinians to live in peace, free from discrimination and with equal civil rights to civil freedoms and self-determination- that means an independent state of Palestine. My position on the war has not changed since day 1, civilians should not suffer collective punishment and the attack by Hamas on Israel was horrific (especially for those with a direct Holocaust history). My position has also been to counteract stereotypical thinking, inherent bias and extremist views regardless of which direction they lean. That has meant a critique of Netanyahu’s government and an honest response to the issues around the Occupation and responding to generalisations and unhelpful characterisations in our thread discussion .

As for argument, I think if you read back on this thread, it has all been to the above purposes and I am neither pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, just anti-violent extremism regardless of who perpetuates it.

We can all agree that what is going on is horrendous but please don’t keep suggesting (to this Jewish person at least) , that Israel had no right to defend herself against a paramilitary invasion and should have unilaterally laid down her arms as a response - it is the way she is responding that I am wholeheartedly AGAINST.

Just to clarify my position and yes I am repeating myself. I have no issue with Israel taking military action per se and indeed if I were in Israel I would probably be supporting it as many moderates are. I have supported previous actions but increasingly to a lesser extent.

What I do say , and I can do it as I am not directly affected by the deaths, that if you take a step back and look at the wider picture then consider what does the military intervention in Gaza give you and what does it deny you i.e. you do a risk analysis of the gains versus the costs.

You then ask yourself a simple question why did Hamas attack now and why do it in such a barbaric way . most cruelty was directed at the most vulnerable. The attack on the kibbutz's is one thing , the attack on the Music festival which attracted a much more liberal type of person clearly showed what this was about, to provoke Israel into a massive military reaction so it would impact the world's perception of Israel , especially in the Muslim world part of which has made peace with Israel and part of which was wanting to increase political and military ties to counter Iran's growing influence, that now hangs in the balance.

This chapter of the conflict is about what Iran want's it doesn't care for the Palestinians it wants a more isolated Israel which is a weaker one. Clearly there is much more going on than just this but Iran has 'won' the political battle.

The counter argument which I don't subscribe to is that you beat hell out of Hamas but what does that give you in the wider picture given you will have to destroy Gaza to achieve that.

 

[Wardy's twin]

My position is the same as it has always been - to defend the rights of both Israeli’s and Palestinians to live in peace, free from discrimination and with equal civil rights to civil freedoms and self-determination- that means an independent state of Palestine. My position on the war has not changed since day 1, civilians should not suffer collective punishment and the attack by Hamas on Israel was horrific (especially for those with a direct Holocaust history). My position has also been to counteract stereotypical thinking, inherent bias and extremist views regardless of which direction they lean. That has meant a critique of Netanyahu’s government and an honest response to the issues around the Occupation and responding to generalisations and unhelpful characterisations in our thread discussion .

As for argument, I think if you read back on this thread, it has all been to the above purposes and I am neither pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, just anti-violent extremism regardless of who perpetuates it.

We can all agree that what is going on is horrendous but please don’t keep suggesting (to this Jewish person at least) , that Israel had no right to defend herself against a paramilitary invasion and should have unilaterally laid down her arms as a response - it is the way she is responding that I am wholeheartedly AGAINST.

see my recent post as well but I am with you with most of this. I disagree with you about how you can balance a military response which is effective without blowing away most of Gaza .

 

[Hastings gull]

Absolutely- and well put - I didn’t say a limited military response would destroy Hamas though!

(and a completely disproportionate one is not likely to either - not least for all the reasons previously discussed up thread + in that sense, @Wardy's twin is right, war, violence never solves anything but the laying down of arms has to be bilateral as it was in 1993 under the Oslo Accords.

Sorry -I did realise that, but I was just quoting your wording. Sometimes, war does solve problems, however, and the decision to go for the jugular against Hitler and insist on unconditional surrender, so that there could be no more suggestions of stabbing in the back, as after WW1, meant that the German people could rebuild from the ruins, and be in no doubt as to the culpability of the regime, and their many supporters, despite later denials of involvement.

God knows how this will all end, though I can't help feeling that Hamas has to be defeated totally, (yes, that will regrettably involve civilian casualties, as in the later WW2 years) and then it will need all parties to really want to work for a solution, if not perfect, then at least one they can all live with and avoid further conflict. It won't be easy.

 

[Hamilton]

yes, I see what you are saying and in theory you are quite right. But in practice a limited proportional response, as you suggest, realistically will not destroy Hamas, who are more than happy, apparently, to use civilians as shields. I am old enough to clearly remember 1967, 1973 and the battles against Hezbollah -the one thing that has characterised all these wars is that the world always urges the Israelis to stop, once they get the upper hand, militarily. I don't profess to know the answers at all, other than to state, somewhat limply, that all sides are going to have to sit down and thrash out a solution, though the barbaric Hamas attacks and the Israeli retaliatory bombings, have surely made that more difficult, as the hatred intensifies.

Very well put.

But all the while Iran are backing Hamas and Hezbollah that's unlikely. I imagine that Iran don't care than much about Palestinians, but they do care about how this unrest might bring about the conflict they need to extend their power from the borders of Pakistan through the east coast of the Med. The more they can do that, the more they can threaten Saudi Arabia. And as the Shia clerics in Iran are ideologically opposed to the Sunnis in Saudi as much as the Jewish population in Israel, that is going to cause problems I imagine.

 

[raymondo]

Analysis from the ISW (Institute for the Study of War) on Putin's likely need to choose between supporting Israel or Iran:

Putin 'to face tough choice' to protect survival of his regime​

As we have previously discussed here, Russia has sought to strike a diplomatic balance following the outbreak of hostilities involving Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Vladimir Putin's regime has maintained strong relations with Israel - which has presented itself as a mediating presence following the invasion of Ukraine - although Moscow has also hosted a delegation from Hamas.
Perhaps even more significantly, Russia has counted on Iran as one of its most important allies since it triggered the war on Ukraine, with Tehran a key supplier of weapons and equipment for Moscow in the face of sanctions on both countries from the West.
And Kimberly Kagan, president for the Institute for the Study of War thinktank, suggested that Mr Putin's attempts to retain such strong links with both Israel and Iran were now doomed to failure.
"The Israeli government has always hoped that Russia would provide some check on Iranian behaviour in Syria," she told PBS.
"We at ISW have assessed that that check has not been effective.
"Be that as it may, it has been Israeli policy to tolerate Russia's presence inside of Syria.
"I don't think that this myth is going to last very long.
"I think Putin is going to have to make a choice soon between whether he will maintain his relationship with Iran or whether he will maintain his relationship with Israel.
"Putin needs Iran in order to sustain his war in Ukraine, so Putin is going to end up facing a tough choice.
"I think he's going to try to delay that choice for as long as he can, but since his war in Ukraine is so important to him and the survival of his regime, he is going to have to optimise his alliance relationship to be able to continue to sustain that war.
"I think the Israelis are going to find that Putin is not a helpful or a friendly actor."
She concluded that the supply of Iranian weapons meant "Putin will end up choosing Iran".

 

[Zeberdi]

Just to clarify my position and yes I am repeating myself. I have no issue with Israel taking military action per se and indeed if I were in Israel I would probably be supporting it as many moderates are. I have supported previous actions but increasingly to a lesser extent.

What I do say , and I can do it as I am not directly affected by the deaths, that if you take a step back and look at the wider picture then consider what does the military intervention in Gaza give you and what does it deny you i.e. you do a risk analysis of the gains versus the costs.

You then ask yourself a simple question why did Hamas attack now and why do it in such a barbaric way . most cruelty was directed at the most vulnerable. The attack on the kibbutz's is one thing , the attack on the Music festival which attracted a much more liberal type of person clearly showed what this was about, to provoke Israel into a massive military reaction so it would impact the world's perception of Israel , especially in the Muslim world part of which has made peace with Israel and part of which was wanting to increase political and military ties to counter Iran's growing influence, that now hangs in the balance.

This chapter of the conflict is about what Iran want's it doesn't care for the Palestinians it wants a more isolated Israel which is a weaker one. Clearly there is much more going on than just this but Iran has 'won' the political battle.

The counter argument which I don't subscribe to is that you beat hell out of Hamas but what does that give you in the wider picture given you will have to destroy Gaza to achieve that.

But that’s what I have been saying along and raised most of the same points early in the thread as have others - in fact I have given detailed analysis of exactly these issues.

The only issue I had with what your were saying repeatedly is that Israel should not have carried out any military response but unilaterally laid down her arms in response to an incursion of paramilitary terrorists. To me this is both irrational and idealistic and a little offensive tbh …the call to non-violence must be imposed on all sides to any conflict.

So on that point we differ.

But on everything else we agree

 

[borat]

Sorry -I did realise that, but I was just quoting your wording. Sometimes, war does solve problems, however, and the decision to go for the jugular against Hitler and insist on unconditional surrender, so that there could be no more suggestions of stabbing in the back, as after WW1, meant that the German people could rebuild from the ruins, and be in no doubt as to the culpability of the regime, and their many supporters, despite later denials of involvement.

God knows how this will all end, though I can't help feeling that Hamas has to be defeated totally, (yes, that will regrettably involve civilian casualties, as in the later WW2 years) and then it will need all parties to really want to work for a solution, if not perfect, then at least one they can all live with and avoid further conflict. It won't be easy.

Interesting that your analogy ascribes the Palestinians as the Germans and the Israelis as the Allies.

The Israelis who are carrying out the occupation Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing are a much better fit with the Germans. It's quite some twist of logic to spin it the other way.

 

[Krafty]

Interesting that your analogy ascribes the Palestinians as the Germans and the Israelis as the Allies.

The Israelis who are carrying out the occupation Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing are a much better fit with the Germans. It's quite some twist of logic to spin it the other way.

Neither the Palestinians or Israelis are "the Germans" or "the Allies", this isn't a good vs bad situation, it is an atrocity involving the death of thousands of innocent civilians.
As @Bozza has said before, can we stop comparing this situation to that of 1939-1945?

 

[Krafty]

Computer had a moment.

 

[Krafty]

Ignore this.

 

[borat]

Neither the Palestinians or Israelis are "the Germans" or "the Allies", this isn't a good vs bad situation, it is an atrocity involving the death of thousands of innocent civilians.
As @Bozza has said before, can we stop comparing this situation to that of 1939-1945?

I completely agree it's a poor analogy - I've seen it referenced many times during these threads including in the post I replied too - mainly with regard to justifying Israeli current ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

 

[Nottseagull]

Sometime in that period the provisional IRA had surpassed 1500 murders, so enough to justify the mass killing of civilians in the eyes of most Western democratic nations. Kill several thousand and you're bound to score some terrorists and their families, including a few babies. Maybe it wouldn't have worked that well because West Belfast isn't a gigantic open prison from which there is no escape. So what do you think?

 

[Zeberdi]

see my recent post as well but I am with you with most of this. I disagree with you about how you can balance a military response which is effective without blowing away most of Gaza .

Sorry but you misunderstood me - Please read back on some of my posts - not once have I said a limited military response/proportionate one would be effective in destroying Hamas - it would have to be utterly disproportionate and even then, I have serious doubts it would be effective. I have said repeatedly that even if Israel did bomb Gaza back into the stone age, and kill every citizen left in Gaza, Hamas will survive - maybe not the foot soldiers/paramilitaries but certainly the ideology - and the leadership in Qatar and Turkey. there are some 7 million Palestinians in refugee camps throughout the ME that will be vulnerable to fresh radicalisation in response to this war after watching the deaths of their family, friends and brethren systematically slaughtered under the ‘Occupier’s bombs’. There is no argument from me that what Israel is doing is not only illegal but risks leading this conflict into the Abyss and dragging the whole of the ME with it.

 

[Chicken Run]

Sometime in that period the provisional IRA had surpassed 1500 murders, so enough to justify the mass killing of civilians in the eyes of most Western democratic nations. Kill several thousand and you're bound to score some terrorists and their families, including a few babies. Maybe it wouldn't have worked that well because West Belfast isn't a gigantic open prison from which there is no escape. So what do you think?

Surely you could have posted this on the relevant thread associated with the point you’re making or are you looking for a few claps and slaps?

 

[junior]

Thread merge?

 

[Hastings gull]

Interesting that your analogy ascribes the Palestinians as the Germans and the Israelis as the Allies.

The Israelis who are carrying out the occupation Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing are a much better fit with the Germans. It's quite some twist of logic to spin it the other way.

No I did not do this: had you properly read the posts, you might have realised that I was replying to the suggestion that wars can never solve anything, and whilst that might largely be true, in the case of the campaign against Hitler, it really did create a much better and freer Germany as well as free many peoples in Europe.

 

[Wardy's twin]

But that’s what I have been saying along and raised most of the same points early in the thread as have others - in fact I have given detailed analysis of exactly these issues.

The only issue I had with what your were saying repeatedly is that Israel should not have carried out any military response but unilaterally laid down her arms in response to an incursion of paramilitary terrorists. To me this is both irrational and idealistic and a little offensive tbh …the call to non-violence must be imposed on all sides to any conflict.

So on that point we differ.

But on everything else we agree

The only issue I had with what your were saying repeatedly is that Israel should not have carried out any military response but unilaterally laid down her arms in response to an incursion of paramilitary terrorists. To me this is both irrational and idealistic and a little offensive tbh …the call to non-violence must be imposed on all sides to any conflict.

Don't think I ever said that. I said they need to look at all the options and the bigger picture and clearly said they should retain the right to strike at any time. No laying down arms but certainly not bombing the crap out of areas which will contain civilians. In some previous events Israel has collated information about those who carried out attacks and then later took action.