[News] Middle East conflict

[wellquickwoody]

How convenient. As with Corbyn, an Antisemites' charter

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………..

 

[armchairclubber]

My focus isn't on Corbyn at all
Simply that his closest followers used exactly the same excuse for antisemitism.
& were deeply Antisemitic

I think you are focusing on Corbyn, because I think the moderators have made it clear that accusations should be backed up. And in making the those accusations you haven't. So this thread could take a different course and I would appeal to a moderator to intervene @Bozza

 

[BadFish]

After everything that has been and is occurring with Israel, Hamas, Gaza and the Palestinians, and where we've ended up why is you're focus on Corbyn?

He's not so relevant now is he, not even within the Labour Party?

...

 

[nicko31]

Bizzare train of thought. Why does the number, or indeed length, of Zeberdi's post matter a jot ? It's the content that counts and I for one appreciate his postings. He's not offensive - even when some posters, who I won't name, have been offensive towards him.

Anyway, enough of dragging this thread off topic - let's get back to discussing the awful situation of murder by both Hamas and Israel in an informative and adult way.

His posts are well thought and informative, can't see the problem. He's not taking over NSC, he is adding detailed insight to a complex issue.

 

[rippleman]

It was an early-doors post on the thread. It's definitely there somewhere. The left hates Starmer almost as much as the right hates him. I wonder why?

And lo, unto us, you have now done some dobbing of blame on Starmer yourself

I'll repeat, there is nothing the UK can do in terms of resolving the crisis, and much harm we could do to ourselves by picking a public fight with America. This is why I'm content with Starmer's stance (which isn't neutral and he's advocating proper talks for a long term solution - not something America wants, but the best any other nation can propose. And Starmer is not our PM, so there is no reason for the US to even know who he is).

If anyone stands alongside Israel and America it is Sunak. Not Starmer. Not that it matters. The only thing that would matter would be if we stood against Israel and America, risking hostility. My (former) union boycotted Israel a few years ago, and its activist members feel mighty smug about that. Meanwhile my former union has achieved f*** all in its own battles over pensions and salaries. You fight the battles you can win, in this world, if you have any brains, and win the battles you fight if you have sufficient abilities.

The big road block to peace remains America. If it threatened to pull the rug from under Israel, Israel would have to give their heads a wobble. But it is backing Israel, right or wrong in exactly the same way it backs gun ownership, right or wrong. If America carries on in the same way, the only solution would be an internal Israeli solution - a strong vote against Likud, and a bold new Israeli PM who is prepared to engage. Sadly the last time Israel had a PM willing to do this, he was murdered by a right wing Jewish zealot. So, I return again to America.

Finally, I also salute Starmer for not trying to turn this disaster into a political football which, were he to do so, would presumably be greeted by your applause (assuming you are in favour of forcing Israel to desist, the only alternative to pressing America privately to desist in their unequivocal support).

On a wider note, how could we stop Israel, if we decided we must do so? They are immune to threats. War, then? Invade Israel? As old Bushy used to say, 'genuine question'.

As you are absolving Starmer in post after post, I feel it only right to remind you that no peace can ever be negotiated without both sides laying down their arms. The most recent settlement I'm aware of was the Good Friday Agreement. Before the talks, the negotiations, the Treaty etc first came the ceasefire. Both Nationalist and Unionist terrorist groups had to agree to a ceasefire before the talks could even start.

In some ways it is perhaps now a moot point as the extreme right-wing Israeli government has made it absolutely clear that it is not going to stop the slaughter in Gaza. But let's not pretend that Starmer is doing the right thing by refusing to call for a ceasefire. If he wants "proper talks for a long term solution" he has to understand that a ceasefire has to come first.

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that it is Sunak - but not Starmer - who stands alongside Israel and the US when the leaders of both main political parties in this country are taking exactly the same stance.


And meanwhile, thousands of innocent Palestinian children continue to die.

 

[aolstudios]

As you are absolving Starmer in post after post, I feel it only right to remind you that no peace can ever be negotiated without both sides laying down their arms. The most recent settlement I'm aware of was the Good Friday Agreement. Before the talks, the negotiations, the Treaty etc first came the ceasefire. Both Nationalist and Unionist terrorist groups had to agree to a ceasefire before the talks could even start.

In some ways it is perhaps now a moot point as the extreme right-wing Israeli government has made it absolutely clear that it is not going to stop the slaughter in Gaza. But let's not pretend that Starmer is doing the right thing by refusing to call for a ceasefire. If he wants "proper talks for a long term solution" he has to understand that a ceasefire has to come first.

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that it is Sunak - but not Starmer - who stands alongside Israel and the US when the leaders of both main political parties in this country are taking exactly the same stance.


And meanwhile, thousands of innocent Palestinian children continue to die.

You're aware that the most recent last 4 ceasefire offers have been refused by Hamas? Who continue to bomb indiscriminately every day. As always

 

[nicko31]

You're aware that the most recent last 4 ceasefire offers have been refused by Hamas? Who continue to bomb indiscriminately every day. As always

What's the death ratio, Israeli bombs v Hamas rockets?

 

[wellquickwoody]

You're aware that the most recent last 4 ceasefire offers have been refused by Hamas? Who continue to bomb indiscriminately every day. As always

But far less effectively than Israel’s far more advanced weaponry, which seems to be ruthlessly targeted into areas previously designated as ‘safe zones’ by Israel itself. Just to give balance to the discussion.

 

[armchairclubber]

You're aware that the most recent last 4 ceasefire offers have been refused by Hamas? Who continue to bomb indiscriminately every day. As always

Are you aware why?

 

[aolstudios]

But far less effectively than Israel’s far more advanced weaponry, which seems to be ruthlessly targeted into areas previously designated as ‘safe zones’ by Israel itself. Just to give balance to the discussion.

To give balance to the discussion, Israel has warned before strikes & deliberately tries to take out only military targets (which Hamas make as hard as possible by firing from schools & hospitals).
Hamas just try to kill Jews.
As I've said before, if Israel just wanted to kill Palestinians or 'take Gaza', they could've done it in days, with zero casualties. Operating on the ground to take out Hamas will give maximum Israeli & minimum Palestinian casualties. This is war. Name another war when an army has been more careful

 

[aolstudios]

Are you aware why?

They were Egyptian brokered offers, so maybe check

 

[armchairclubber]

They were Egyptian brokered offers, so maybe check

Hopefully someone can provide them? Im sure there are many powers at play as well as honesty, integrity and trust, ever changing with a war that continues daily.

Just to give insight I lifted these details from Wiki, not exhaustive by any means but giving an idea of how complex.

On 24 October, US President Joe Biden stated, "We should have those hostages released and then we can talk",[40] and has subsequently doubled down on that opposition, saying that doing so would allow Hamas to attack Israel again.[41] On 25 October, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also rejected a call for a ceasefire.[42][43] The UK's Leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, also opposed a ceasefire on 8 November.[44] German chancellor Olaf Scholz also opposed an "immediate cease-fire" on 13 November.[45][46] However, by 13 December, Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire.[17][18][19][20]

The ceasefire was opposed domestically in Israel by three ministers from the political party Jewish Power.[47]

 

[wellquickwoody]

Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq x 2 (lesser percentage of civilians killed when compared to population in all cases).

 

[thejackal]

To give balance to the discussion, Israel has warned before strikes & deliberately tries to take out only military targets (which Hamas make as hard as possible by firing from schools & hospitals).
Hamas just try to kill Jews.
As I've said before, if Israel just wanted to kill Palestinians or 'take Gaza', they could've done it in days, with zero casualties. Operating on the ground to take out Hamas will give maximum Israeli & minimum Palestinian casualties. This is war. Name another war when an army has been more careful

You are so wrong, it borders on the ridiculous.

This from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas):

In January 2004, Hamas leader Yassin said that the group would end armed resistance against Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, and that restoring Palestinians' "historical rights" (relating to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight) "would be left for future generations."[43]

"Hamas just try to kill Jews" is a deliberately obtuse statement, in my opinion, or a deliberately stupid one.

 

[thejackal]

As I've said before, if Israel just wanted to kill Palestinians or 'take Gaza', they could've done it in days, with zero casualties.

Incorrect.

Several right-wing members of the Knesset and Israeli govt have called for the eradication of all Palestinians and the total confiscation of all occupied territory. The former is known as genocide, and the latter as a war crime. Neither is permissible under international law, yet some in the Israeli govt have called for exactly that.

My guess is that the only thing stopping them is that the whole world is watching.

 

[pocketseagull]

Good opinion piece from Peter Hain in todays Guardian

Israel and its allies must face facts: peace talks are the only way forward, and they will have to include Hamas | Peter Hain

My experience tells me this: tough negotiation will achieve what bombs cannot, says Peter Hain, former UK Middle East minister and Northern Ireland secretary of state

www.theguardian.com

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As you are absolving Starmer in post after post, I feel it only right to remind you that no peace can ever be negotiated without both sides laying down their arms. The most recent settlement I'm aware of was the Good Friday Agreement. Before the talks, the negotiations, the Treaty etc first came the ceasefire. Both Nationalist and Unionist terrorist groups had to agree to a ceasefire before the talks could even start.

In some ways it is perhaps now a moot point as the extreme right-wing Israeli government has made it absolutely clear that it is not going to stop the slaughter in Gaza. But let's not pretend that Starmer is doing the right thing by refusing to call for a ceasefire. If he wants "proper talks for a long term solution" he has to understand that a ceasefire has to come first.

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that it is Sunak - but not Starmer - who stands alongside Israel and the US when the leaders of both main political parties in this country are taking exactly the same stance.


And meanwhile, thousands of innocent Palestinian children continue to die.

<sigh>

OK, then. It's all Starmer's fault. If only he had demanded an immediate ceasefire by Israel, the . . . . oh, ah, as you go on to say it would have made no difference.

What do you want exactly? Starmer shouting at America to jolly well tell Israel to jolly well stop their killing spree? Well you won't get it. What about Corbyn back? Or another 5 years of Sunk?

I am very much an art of the possible sort, not a student protesting type, lurching about demanding this and that. One of my brothers has been and will be back in London, lending his support to the Palestinians. But.....meanwhile thousands of innocent Palestinian children continue to die. Despite all his efforts.

Oh. But if only I joined in, condemning Labour and waving a Palestinian flag in Trafalgar square it would all stop. Instead I just keep absolving the evil Starmer on post after post. I am the great absolver.

f***'s sake.

I am content with this:

Keir Starmer statement – The Labour Party

The end of the cessation of hostilities in Gaza is deeply concerning, I urge all sides not to squander progress made over the last week. All sides must work for a return to cessation that would allow for the release of more hostages, provide much needed time and space to tackle the humanitarian...

labour.org.uk

 

[armchairclubber]

Incorrect.

Several right-wing members of the Knesset and Israeli govt have called for the eradication of all Palestinians and the total confiscation of all occupied territory. The former is known as genocide, and the latter as a war crime. Neither is permissible under international law, yet some in the Israeli govt have called for exactly that.

My guess is that the only thing stopping them is that the whole world is watching.

I'm not sure that's stopping them, they're making a f***ing job of it.

 

[thejackal]

I'm not sure that's stopping them, they're making a f***ing good job of it.

True but given the history of Israel's 'mowing the lawn' operations, you can only imagine how much worse it would be if no-one were watching.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What's the death ratio, Israeli bombs v Hamas rockets?

I would imagine that Israel smites at a ratio of at least ten to one. But what of it?