[News] Middle East conflict

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I've tried to have a grown up discussion on a message board and have been told to grow up.
(Have tried other things by the way)
Suggest we both leave it there for now

It's nothing to do with 'growing up' and everything to do with holding some morals - something neither Starmer nor Sunak appear to have. Those that stand by silent ( as the UK abstention at the UN is ) are implicit in the act of genocide. You can well argue that if either of them spoke in favour of a ceasefire it wouldn't make any difference but it does - it makes a difference for the UK to be on the right side of history. Can I, or any of us normal plebs, do anything to stop it ? No. But what I can do is voice my disgust at Israel murdering innocent civilians. Something none of our so called "leaders" have done and I will be doing so when the scummy weasels come and knock on my door begging for my vote at the next GE. Instead, Starmer and Sunak appear more concerned in appeasing Israel to prevent the huge amount of trade we do with them. Much like us selling billions of pounds worth of arms to another vile state - Saudi Arabia.

Those that show apathy towards what Israel are doing, as you appear to do, implicitly support it.

I have not shown apathy. But I'm long past emoting about something I can't affect. I personally think they should stop the attack on Gaza right now. And I say that fully in the knowledge that Hamas will rearm, rinse and repeat. And I say that because until the Israelis get their heads around not occupying the West Bank, and start negotiating some sort of settlement with 'ordinary' Palestinians (whoever they may be - presently they have no representation in the Hamas dictatorship), Israel can expect to be randomly bombed by Hamas.

It is complicated is it not? It is not black and white. Loudly condemning Israel is pointless, and calling for it is self indulgent virtue signaling.

I recall the first interview with a Palestinian official after the Israeli revenge attack started. He refused to say anything about the Hamas attack on Israel. All he wanted to talk about was the death of innocent Palestinians. My initial reaction was 'what an absolute **** - f*** off'.

This is not about British politics, and who is the most virtuous - Starmer or Sunk. If people are making up their minds over who to vote for in the general election on the basis of how strongly they condemn Israel (or indeed condemn Hamas) they are deluded about the importance of the UK in the world. May as well vote for the leader who most loves God. Indeed as I probably noted weeks ago, this delusion explains how so many people (still) support Johnson, and think Brexit is a brilliant thing. And Rwanda.

The best move here is to pressure America in private to pressure Israel to back off, while supporting the American position in public.

Incidentally had Blair not backed America over Iraq we would have had a tory government rather than a third labour term. If you think labour were balls-deep into the war against Sadam, then the tories were buried right up to the collar bone, with only their pointy heads visible.

So, sorry, it is all about growing up, rather than making presumptions about masts and nails and my sympathies. Perhaps I can steal a quote from Corbyn, friend of Palestinians, on this and say I condemn all acts of violence.

 

[armchairclubber]

It's nothing to do with 'growing up' and everything to do with holding some morals - something neither Starmer nor Sunak appear to have. Those that stand by silent ( as the UK abstention at the UN is ) are implicit in the act of genocide. You can well argue that if either of them spoke in favour of a ceasefire it wouldn't make any difference but it does - it makes a difference for the UK to be on the right side of history. Can I, or any of us normal plebs, do anything to stop it ? No. But what I can do is voice my disgust at Israel murdering innocent civilians. Something none of our so called "leaders" have done and I will be doing so when the scummy weasels come and knock on my door begging for my vote at the next GE. Instead, Starmer and Sunak appear more concerned in appeasing Israel to protect the huge amount of trade we do with them as well as the intelligence they give us. Much like us selling billions of pounds worth of arms to another vile state - Saudi Arabia.

Those that show apathy towards what Israel are doing, as you appear to do, implicitly support it.

..If only I were old enough I could vote for the Labour party.

 

[Bakero]

I have not shown apathy. But I'm long past emoting about something I can't affect. I personally think they should stop the attack on Gaza right now. And I say that fully in the knowledge that Hamas will rearm, rinse and repeat. And I say that because until the Israelis get their heads around not occupying the West Bank, and start negotiating some sort of settlement with 'ordinary' Palestinians (whoever they may be - presently they have no representation in the Hamas dictatorship), Israel can expect to be randomly bombed by Hamas.

It is complicated is it not? It is not black and white. Loudly condemning Israel is pointless, and calling for it is self indulgent virtue signaling.

I recall the first interview with a Palestinian official after the Israeli revenge attack started. He refused to say anything about the Hamas attack on Israel. All he wanted to talk about was the death of innocent Palestinians. My initial reaction was 'what an absolute **** - f*** off'.

This is not about British politics, and who is the most virtuous - Starmer or Sunk. If people are making up their minds over who to vote for in the general election on the basis of how strongly they condemn Israel (or indeed condemn Hamas) they are deluded about the importance of the UK in the world. May as well vote for the leader who most loves God. Indeed as I probably noted weeks ago, this delusion explains how so many people (still) support Johnson, and think Brexit is a brilliant thing. And Rwanda.

The best move here is to pressure America in private to pressure Israel to back off, while supporting the American position in public.

Incidentally had Blair not backed America over Iraq we would have had a tory government rather than a third labour term. If you think labour were balls-deep into the war against Sadam, then the tories were buried right up to the collar bone, with only their pointy heads visible.

So, sorry, it is all about growing up, rather than making presumptions about masts and nails and my sympathies. Perhaps I can steal a quote from Corbyn, friend of Palestinians, on this and say I condemn all acts of violence.

I think you're wrong on this on numerous levels, Harry.

Number 1, we want our politicians to have some moral conviction. That's why Starmer's position is doing him no favours.

Number 2, privately applying pressure, which I'm sure UK parties are doing, is not working. It's time to go public.

Number 3, British power may not be what it once was but we do have an influence. The MO is to follow the States. They vote against a UN resolution, we abstain. This has happened countless times. However, there is a recent precedent where the standard path wasn't followed. In 2009, we were all set to do the normal dance when Gordon Brown decided to vote in favour of a ceasefire. The US switched to abstain and the bombs stopped within days.

Regardless of any of this, the main point is any right-thinking person can't support the continued slaughter and destruction. That goes for members of parliament and members of the public.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think you're wrong on this on numerous levels, Harry.

Number 1, we want our politicians to have some moral conviction. That's why Starmer's position is doing him no favours.

Number 2, privately applying pressure, which I'm sure UK parties are doing, is not working. It's time to go public.

Number 3, British power may not be what it once was but we do have an influence. The MO is to follow the States. They vote against a UN resolution, we abstain. This has happened countless times. However, there is a recent precedent where the standard path wasn't followed. In 2009, we were all set to do the normal dance when Gordon Brown decided to vote in favour of a ceasefire. The US switched to abstain and the bombs stopped within days.

Regardless of any of this, the main point is any right-thinking person can't support the continued slaughter and destruction. That goes for members of parliament and members of the public.

I agree with that. I am certainly free to call for an end to this and I call for it. I call for it. I call for it.

(Has it stopped yet?)

If Brown was able to make the US change its mind in 2009, good. What job did he have at the time, though? Ah! Prime Minister!

Look, I understand how upset people are about the deaths in Gaza, and if they are labour supporters they expect to hear the exhortations that map to this. Maybe Starmer could have immediately demanded a ceasefire. Personally had he done so I would have considered him having delusions of relevance.

Finally, backing Hamas is not a sign of moral conviction. Getting a ceasefire will simply allow Hamas to regroup, rinse and repeat. As I posted elsewhere it is a lot more complicated than Palestine good, Israel bad. I know that isn't what you think but a ceasefire will work only if Palestine reasonable, Israel trusting. Neither are the case.

 

[Bakero]

I agree with that. I am certainly free to call for an end to this and I call for it. I call for it. I call for it.

(Has it stopped yet?)

If Brown was able to make the US change its mind in 2009, good. What job did he have at the time, though? Ah! Prime Minister!

Look, I understand how upset people are about the deaths in Gaza, and if they are labour supporters they expect to hear the exhortations that map to this. Maybe Starmer could have immediately demanded a ceasefire. Personally had he done so I would have considered him having delusions of relevance.

Finally, backing Hamas is not a sign of moral conviction. Getting a ceasefire will simply allow Hamas to regroup, rinse and repeat. As I posted elsewhere it is a lot more complicated than Palestine good, Israel bad. I know that isn't what you think but a ceasefire will work only if Palestine reasonable, Israel trusting. Neither are the case.

Starmer doesn't need to "demand" a ceasefire but he could, of course, publicly support one. I feel we're a bit fixated on Starmer here though.

That bit in bold is a hell of a bad take though. To link wanting an end to civilian deaths to support for terrorists is just not on. Anyway, the bombing and destruction is not only morally wrong but strategically it makes no sense. What hostage negotiator advocates it? What anti-terrorism expert thinks you can bomb Hamas (and their ideology) out of existence?

 

[borat]

The Israeli ambassador to the UK doesn't think the Palestinians should have their own state.

Be interested to know what she has planned for them other than the massacre and displacement thats going on now.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Starmer doesn't need to "demand" a ceasefire but he could, of course, publicly support one. I feel we're a bit fixated on Starmer here though.

That bit in bold is a hell of a bad take though. To link wanting an end to civilian deaths to support for terrorists is just not on. Anyway, the bombing and destruction is not only morally wrong but strategically it makes no sense. What hostage negotiator advocates it? What anti-terrorism expert thinks you can bomb Hamas (and their ideology) out of existence?

Apologies. Its that I am fed up with Starmer being identified as the main reason why Israel continues to defenestrate Gaza. I'm not blaming Sunk so I can't fathom why (I suspect leftish) posters are blaming Starmer. It is whataboutery.

Anyway I should probably shut up now. You are the last person I should be arguing with.

 

[Krafty]

This whole event has been so f***ing depressing.

There needs to be a ceasefire, now.

 

[nicko31]

The Israeli ambassador to the UK doesn't think the Palestinians should have their own state.

Be interested to know what she has planned for them other than the massacre and displacement thats going on now.

Isn't one of the core skills of being an ambassador the art of diplomacy ? A far right zealot

 

[aolstudios]

This whole event has been so f***ing depressing.

There needs to be a ceasefire, now.

What do you suggest to achieve this?

 

[armchairclubber]

What do you suggest to achieve this?

Have you ever heard of Zarah Sultana?

 

[Zeberdi]

It is not a case that those arguing for a ceasefire are backing Hamas - that is a view fed by a far right agenda that does not support a peaceful two state solution or even a one state solution that recognises Palestinians as equal citizens to Jews. People must stop conflating ‘Palestinians’’ with Hamas - they are not the same - the majority of Gazans don’t even support Hamas politically, let alone their terrorist activities. This war is an ideological and territorial one between the Israeli far right government and the radical jihadists, Hamas and other jihadist terrorist groups operating in the region.

As for British political involvement - it IS relevant and Britons expect their leaders to show moral leadership on the World stage - that includes leaders of the opposition parties in the UK - that’s part of democratic accountability- one of the principles underlying our unwritten Constitution. Taking a moral and humanitarian position on what a ceasefire would provide (ie the end to thousands of innocent civilians being killed) is what Robin Cook the Labour Foreign Secretary under Tony Blair, would have termed ‘ethical foreign policy’. Britain is one of the 5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council and has consistently vetoed votes for a ceasefire - it is simply incorrect to suggest we are on the sidelines here - we are up to our neck in it.

One on the main players influencing Britains stance on Israel is the Israeli Ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely - a far right Religous Zionist who spearheaded settlement expansion under Netanyahu when she was a minister in his administration. As pointed out earlier in this thread:

[News] - Middle East conflict

The absolute grace of hostage Yocheved Lifschitz, 85, a peace activist, turning back at the moment of her release and shaking hands with one of her heavily-armed captors is a stunningly beautiful thing If there's any hope of peace between them, that image should be the cornerstone of it...

www.northstandchat.com

Today Ms Hotovely doubled down on her Religious Zionist vision of a Greater Israel that does not include Palestinians - I think anyone that can’t see that the views held by the Ambassador advising the British Government on Israeli matters is the ideological agenda that is fuelling these utterly disproportionate attacks on Palestinians in Gaza should probably do some more back ground reading on the history of the far right in Israel.

Israel-Hamas war: Middle East crisis latest

Follow this live page for the latest on the wars in the Middle East as Israel fights both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

news.sky.com

A ceasefire is required for no other reason than to protect lives of civilians and to negotiate the release of hostages. Hamas will not be destroyed (because their leadership is safely running the organisation from Qatar and Turkey) but you can be sure that if the UK and the US say ‘enough with killing civilians’ and stop vetoing the UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire, then Israel will announce very soon after that, that the objectives ‘have been achieved’, ‘Hamas is destroyed’ and the ’West has been United in winning the war on terror’. Until then, the bombardments will continue and UN resolutions on humanitarian abuses and charges of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, will continue to be ignored.

 

[Billy the Fish]

It is not a case that those arguing for a ceasefire are backing Hamas - that is a view fed by a far right agenda that does not support a peaceful two state solution or even a one state solution that recognises Palestinians as equal citizens to Jews. People must stop conflating ‘Palestinians’’ with Hamas - they are not the same - the majority of Gazans don’t even support Hamas politically, let alone their terrorist activities. This war is an ideological and territorial one between the Israeli far right government and the radical jihadists, Hamas and other jihadist terrorist groups operating in the region.

So what do you suggest happens to Hamas? They govern the region, the answer can't be to do nothing and let them carry on.

There doesn't seem to be any appetite for a 2 state solution in the ME, is anyone actually calling for it?

 

[Zeberdi]

So what do you suggest happens to Hamas? They govern the region, the answer can't be to do nothing and let them carry on.

There doesn't seem to be any appetite for a 2 state solution in the ME, is anyone actually calling for it?

Tbh - I don’t know - clearly they need to be demilitarised- part of that has already happened- but flooding/contaminating Gaza’s fresh water aquifers with salt water in an act of environmental terrorism isn’t the answer, nor is killing over 10,000 infants and children. The rule of terror with which Hamas has ruled Gaza must come to an end - but something needs to fill the political vacuum that removing Hamas from power will leave - agreement on that will be hard to achieve but it is essential and must not be something imposed by the West - it has to be a joint Arab-West agreement with the full involvement of Palestinian civilian representation..

We also cannot be completely blind to the conditions that had provided a petri dish for breeding radicalism in the ME and especially in the Occupied Territories either. Israel cannot be allowed to carry on with apartheid polices, rampant settlement expansion, indiscriminate killings and collective punishments. Part of what needs to be done IMO can be done through civil and human rights regimes - undermining the power of Hamas to defraud Gazans out of Humanitarian aid by providing aid directly to civilians rather than through the Hamas authorities and restoring a system of democratic elections for people of Gaza - they have had no political choice who governs them since 2005 (there’s never been an election in Gaza - Hamas took over by violently expelling the PA). International rebuilding of infrastructure and housing with an international peace keeping force perhaps? Anything is better than what we have now but going back to the pre-October status quo isn’t an option though.

Over 10,000 infants and children killed in Israel’s Gaza genocide, hundreds of whom are trapped beneath debris

Over 10,000 infants and children killed in Israel’s Gaza genocide, hundreds of whom are trapped beneath debris

euromedmonitor.org

There is still support for the two state solution and some support for a one state solution (which seems more unlikely at this time ) - the alternative in the meantime would be for a coalition run Arab enclave possibly under the auspices of the UN but absolutely NOT an Israeli occupation.

 

[Bakero]

US intelligence said yesterday that nearly half the bombs dropped on Gaza have been unguided "dumb" bombs. Alongside the fact that more bombs were dropped on a small built up area in a week than on the whole of Afghanistan in a year, this really gives the lie to the claim that the bombing has not been indiscriminate.

 

[jcdenton08]

What was the initial trigger which led Hamas (the terrorists) to attack, kidnap and rape Israeli (state) citizens in the first place on October 7th?

 

[Bakero]

What was the initial trigger which led Hamas (the terrorists) to attack, kidnap and rape Israeli (state) citizens in the first place on October 7th?

100 years of history.

 

[jcdenton08]

100 years of history.

Of course. But when Hamas attacked a sovereign state, there were always going to be repercussions.

Where I think most of us agree is that it’s gone too far now, from righteous anger and tit-for-tat to outright attempted annihilation of Palestine.

The bloodshed needs to end, but talking to some campaigners in London recently they seemed to consider Palestine (and their tolerance of Hamas) blameless in this whole bloody mess.

 

[Zeberdi]

US intelligence said yesterday that nearly half the bombs dropped on Gaza have been unguided "dumb" bombs. Alongside the fact that more bombs were dropped on a small built up area in a week than on the whole of Afghanistan in a year, this really gives the lie to the claim that the bombing has not been indiscriminate.

They should know, they are supplying the bulk of Israel‘s weapons to fight this war. Israel wouldn’t even be able to conduct this war without US weapons imports - now worth up to an additional $14 billion since 7 October, on top of existing arms contracts.

The US has recently been selling guidance equipment to Israel to turn these ‘dumb bombs’ into precision weapons. “The guidance kits are similar to JDAMs produced by the US. JDAMs – joint direct attack munitions – are also fin and steering kits that turn unguided “dumb” bombs into guided “smart” bombs. The US began expediting the delivery of JDAMs to Israel shortly after the start of the war, a senior defence official said in late October, which was one of Israel’s top needs, along with interceptor missiles for its aerial defence systems.” ‘The U.S. has provided Israel with large bunker buster bombs, among tens of thousands of other weapons and artillery shells and while it’s the IDF ‘doing the killing, the extent of US aid has raised serious questions about American culpability. “Providing weapons that knowingly and significantly would contribute to unlawful attacks can make those providing them complicit in war crimes,” Human Rights Watch said.’

When you consider the value of arms sales to Israel for the US, you can understand why a ceasefire would not be in the US’s financial interest.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/06/politics/us-israel-weapons-sale-transfer/index.html

Most of Israel’s weapons imports come from the US. Now Biden is rushing even more arms.

What the US sending Israel weapons "at the speed of war" looks like.

www.vox.com

The bloodshed needs to end, but talking to some campaigners in London recently they seemed to consider Palestine (and their tolerance of Hamas) blameless in this whole bloody mess.

I doubt anyone with a rational mind, Palestinian or otherwise would claim the jihadist terror groups are blameless for the violence on October 7 - they have freely admitted it - but Palestinian civilians are most definitely ‘blameless’ for the genocidal slaughter going on now - it would be inhumane to say civilians deserve to be ethnically cleansed from the land they live on or ‘deserve’ the war crimes being perpetrated upon them.

As for the wider context - there are polarised views on both sides as to what came first, the chicken or the egg - violent occupation or defence against those who would resist it.

 

[Bakero]

Of course. But when Hamas attacked a sovereign state, there were always going to be repercussions.

Where I think most of us agree is that it’s gone too far now, from righteous anger and tit-for-tat to outright attempted annihilation of Palestine.

The bloodshed needs to end, but talking to some campaigners in London recently they seemed to consider Palestine (and their tolerance of Hamas) blameless in this whole bloody mess

In the 3000-odd posts on this thread, I don't think anyone has ever suggested there shouldn't have been repercussions for the Hamas attacks.

No doubt those types exist now elsewhere (as do those who think Israel can do no wrong) but NSCers have universally condemned Hamas as far as I know.