[News] Middle East conflict

[armchairclubber]

4 out of 5 people in the world suffering from famine are in the world right now. That's a truly shocking statistic

To clarify my understanding of that spoken, 4 out of 5 people that are in famine in the world right now are in Gaza.

Nevertheless we've already had a post on this thread that appeared only concerned by the rising cost of UK food prices / imports as a result.

 

[borat]

To clarify my understanding of that spoken, 4 out of 5 people that are in famine in the world right now are in Gaza

Nevertheless we've already had a post on this thread that appeared only concerned by the rising cost of UK food prices as a result

There is also a massive famine in Yemen yet the UK is more preoccupied with offensive military intervention on Israels behalf / shipping protection rather than stopping a genocide.

 

[nicko31]

Agree. All the emoting in favour or against present or previous leaders of UK political parties has had its day. The only game in town now is holding Israel to book for genocide.

Sadly that won't stop Hamas or whatever comes afterwards rinsing off their arms procurement and repeating, from whatever is left of Gaza.

And in the meantime the US will not hold Israel back.

Is there anything anyone can do to stop this? I can't think of anything. The two sides seem to have messiah complex and are willing to disregard every boundary in pursuit of what the regard as righteous smiting.

The US is the only country that can stop Israel, USD4 billion in military aid last year.

If Israel is found guilty of genocide in the International court support from many European countries is going to soften.

 

[armchairclubber]

There is also a massive famine in Yemen yet the UK is more preoccupied with offensive military intervention on Israels behalf / shipping protection rather than stopping a genocide.

..alongside continued arms trade with Saudi, hence as you say a long lasting famine in Yemen.

Not that you'd hear too much about that in / from certain journalistic outlets.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The US is the only country that can stop Israel, USD4 billion in military aid last year.

If Israel is found guilty of genocide in the International court support from many European countries is going to soften.

1. Agree. And they won't

2. Probably won't be relevant. I am not sure I can recall any convictions made in the international court. That German who lived under house arrest for 50 years? Herman Munster was it? Herbert Hess? A bit like being found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. The only thing that matters here is military control, and in the present context that means once the genocide is over then Israel will not care who volunteers to clean up the bones, as long as Bre'r Palestinian missile chucker is out of the picture. Anyway, any international court that does not have America as part of it is as ignorable as the Welsh second division.

 

[Zeberdi]

The ‘Israel-Hamas War‘ (or ‘ MIDDLE EAST CRISIS’ as it is now being referred to) has become a regional conflict as many of us warned it could right at the beginning of this thread.

Did the Government seriously just leave it up to the press to announce to the British public that our forces are now actively engaged in bombing another country? And contrary to convention, without even going through Parliament?

Ten countries involved in air strikes on Yemen’s Houthis – as it happened

This blog is now closed

www.theguardian.com

Middle East latest: 'Countdown has begun': Israel warns new Hezbollah leader after spate of killings

At least 93 people have been killed in an Israeli strike in northern Gaza, according to officials. Meanwhile, in Lebanon the Hezbollah militant group has elected a new leader after the death of Hassan Nasrallah - and in Israel, the UN Palestinian agency has been banned from operating.

news.sky.com

Seems the US (and at least 6 other countries) have committed to this with an equal distain for democratic accountability in bypassing Congress - what concerns me personally is the language of the War on Terror and the rhetoric of escalation and posturing we are seeing instead of the calling on Israel for a humanitarian ceasefire and restraint we were hearing just a few weeks ago.

US defence secretary Lloyd Austin (from his hospital bed!) has released a statement about the strikes – saying the US is prepared to take “follow-on” action to protect US. Rishi Sunak has released a similar statement regarding the protection of British forces.

US, British militaries launch massive retaliatory strike against Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen

U.S. and British militaries are bombing more than a dozen sites used by the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, in a retaliatory strike.

apnews.com

Of course if Israel stopped bombing Gaza, the Houthis would stop firing rockets at Israel and drones over the Red Sea would be less disruptive, the US and UK forces wouldn’t need defending and Israel’s war wouldn’t spread to Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Syria - too simple? So now the US and UK are now directly involved in a proxy war with Iran.

Is anyone else seeing the ‘mission creep here? How it is becoming re-purposed as a ‘War on Terror’?

 

[armchairclubber]

 

[jcdenton08]

I don’t know how Britain can be criticised this military response. Houthi forces have been launching continuous sustained attacks on warships and merchant vessels belonging to Britain, British interests and our allies. What do you do, turn a blind eye? Hope one of our warships isn’t sunk or civilians and military killed?

Britain warns of severe consequences after Houthi attack in Red Sea repelled | Yemen | The Guardian

US and UK warships shoot down barrage of rockets, drones and cruise missiles fired at ships by Yemeni group

amp.theguardian.com

“Late on Wednesday the UN security council adopted a resolution condemning and demanding an immediate halt to Houthi attacks.
The resolution, sponsored by the United States and Japan, said at least two dozen Houthi attacks are impeding global commerce “and undermine navigational rights and freedoms as well as regional peace and security”.



I would suggest the quickest and most peaceful end to this military action would be for Yemeni forces to stop attacking British ships in peacetime?

 

[BadFish]

I don’t know how Britain can be criticised this military response. Houthi forces have been launching continuous sustained attacks on warships and merchant vessels belonging to Britain, British interests and our allies. What do you do, turn a blind eye? Hope one of our warships isn’t sunk or civilians and military killed?

Britain warns of severe consequences after Houthi attack in Red Sea repelled | Yemen | The Guardian

US and UK warships shoot down barrage of rockets, drones and cruise missiles fired at ships by Yemeni group

amp.theguardian.com

“Late on Wednesday the UN security council adopted a resolution condemning and demanding an immediate halt to Houthi attacks.
The resolution, sponsored by the United States and Japan, said at least two dozen Houthi attacks are impeding global commerce “and undermine navigational rights and freedoms as well as regional peace and security”.



I would suggest the quickest and most peaceful end to this military action would be for Yemeni forces to stop attacking British ships in peacetime?

Personally I would like to feel confident that the UK's involvement in this was backed by the process and approval of the international coalition created to deal with the situation in Yemen. Additionally and most importantly I would like to feel confident that this action was taken with parliamentary approval and after a process of discussion in parliament.

From what I am reading both of these things are in doubt. Has the government gone rouge on this. Is the suggestion of another illegal war in the middle east too dramatic? Time will tell I guess.

 

[jcdenton08]

Personally I would like to feel confident that the UK's involvement in this was backed by the process and approval of the international coalition created to deal with the situation in Yemen. Additionally and most importantly I would like to feel confident that this action was taken with parliamentary approval and after a process of discussion in parliament.

From what I am reading both of these things are in doubt. Has the government gone rouge on this. Is the suggestion of another illegal war in the middle east too dramatic? Time will tell I guess.

The sitting government is under no obligation to consult Parliament or gain their approval, although I do note the BBC saying that Starmer was invited to the briefing as a courtesy (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67954031).

Terms like “illegal war” are entirely hyperbolic (at least, at this stage of play given the context of responding to targeted attacks after repeated warnings to stop attacking western ships) - the US, UK and their allies have struck targets to prevent further attacks on their interests, military and personnel both civilian and military.

It’s a “clean shoot”.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don’t know how Britain can be criticised this military response. Houthi forces have been launching continuous sustained attacks on warships and merchant vessels belonging to Britain, British interests and our allies. What do you do, turn a blind eye? Hope one of our warships isn’t sunk or civilians and military killed?

oh it will. i already see people comparing to "Sunak's Falklands" in an attempt to politicise. ignoring the US involvement and, most significantly, the Houthi lobbing missiles at civilian ships for weeks. i suppose we should just sit back do nothing and route all our ships away.

 

[BadFish]

The sitting government is under no obligation to consult Parliament or gain their approval, although I do note the BBC saying that Starmer was invited to the briefing as a courtesy (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67954031).

Terms like “illegal war” are entirely hyperbolic (at least, at this stage of play) - the US, UK and their allies have struck targets to prevent further attacks on their interests, military and personnel both civilian and military.

It’s a “clean shoot”.

Not really sure I believe in the concept of a 'clean shoot'.

From what I have read this action sits outside the coalition formed to deal with the problem.

I guess we see what comes out in the wash.

Right now I feel very uncomfortable and mistrusting about the whole situation.

Edit - after reading the article you posted it looks like I am not alone in wishing that decisions such as this go through parliament.

More info here : https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldconst/236/23603.htm

(Still reading this but it is interesting)

 

[jcdenton08]

oh it will. i already see people comparing to "Sunak's Falklands" in an attempt to politicise. ignoring the US involvement and, most significantly, the Houthi lobbing missiles at civilian ships for weeks. i suppose we should just sit back do nothing and route all our ships away.

That’s the problem, isn’t it. Because this government are so inept any sort of action, however justified/necessary, will be immediately politicised as being about the Tories, rather than about British interests coming under direct attack.

 

[jcdenton08]

Not really sure I believe in the concept of a 'clean shoot'.

From what I have read this action sits outside the coalition formed to deal with the problem.

I guess we see what comes out in the wash.

Right now I feel very uncomfortable and mistrusting about the whole situation.

Out of interest, what would your solution be? Not having a go, genuinely curious. Obviously you’d like parliament to reconvene and debate this, gain cross-party support and then decide.

In the mean time, what is your opinion of British warships and civilian/Danish/Norwegian merchant ships being targeted by another (according to Iran/Hezbollah) “sovereign nation” with repeat rocket attacks for weeks on end?

Would a ship have to be sunk? Two? How many deaths before Britain was “allowed” to respond in kind?

This isn’t “an Iraq”, although obviously it will be spun that way by certain people, it is a completely different set of circumstances.

 

[BadFish]

Out of interest, what would your solution be? Not having a go, genuinely curious. Obviously you’d like parliament to reconvene and debate this, gain cross-party support and then decide.

In the mean time, what is your opinion of British warships and civilian/Danish/Norwegian merchant ships being targeted by another (according to Iran/Hezbollah) “sovereign nation” with repeat rocket attacks for weeks on end?

Would a ship have to be sunk? Two? How many deaths before Britain was “allowed” to respond in kind?

This isn’t “an Iraq”, although obviously it will be spun that way by certain people, it is a completely different set of circumstances.

I guess the Iraq war did go through parliament so perhaps my faith in that process is misplaced.

Howeve I would like processes in place to make sure that this action is the correct one. Though the British parliament, the UN and the coalition set up for this purpose.

This way I will feel more confident of the window of bombing another country.

You seem pretty happy with the outcome, perhaps it will prove to be the right move. I am less confident about that.

As I say only time will tell on that front.

 

[jcdenton08]

Yes I would processes in place to make sure that this action is the correct one. Though the British parliament, the UN and the coalition set up for this purpose.

This way I will feel more confident of the window of bombing another country.

You seem pretty happy with the outcome, perhaps it will prove to be the right move. I am less confident about that.

As I say only time will tell on that front.

I wouldn’t say I feel “happy” with the outcome. I’m saying that if a country was attacking your ships for weeks on end, a military response is inevitable. Wars have started over much less.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Good to hear Sir Keir saying last night was justifiable and understandable, and that the timing was right.

 

[nicko31]

I wouldn’t say I feel “happy” with the outcome. I’m saying that if a country was attacking your ships for weeks on end, a military response is inevitable. Wars have started over much less.

We need to defend International shipping whilst simultaneously demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

I should add this is depriving Egypt is much needed income, wait till that place kicks off....

 

[jcdenton08]

We need to defend International shipping whilst simultaneously demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

I absolutely agree with you there.

 

[BadFish]

I wouldn’t say I feel “happy” with the outcome. I’m saying that if a country was attacking your ships for weeks on end, a military response is inevitable. Wars have started over much less.

I understand your point I just don't find it a compelling arguement against seeking consideration and support from the wider community (both locally and internationally). I will always err on the side of caution and hope that all alternate avenues, idea and options have been exhausted before bombing.

To me that is what the processes represent. Jaw jaw not war war and all that.