Hamas Israel War

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The people asking for a cease-fire are asking it of both sides (otherwise it’s not a cease-fire, is it?) - you’re just making stuff up….

He's not, the demands for a ceasefire have been squarely directed at Israel.

and I haven't seen anyone demanding an immediate ceasefire, also demanding the immediate release of all the hostages.......funny that.....

Israel need to have a plan for what they do after they defeat Hamas, or all that will happen is that a successor to Hamas will appear, just like Hamas were a successor to Fatah.

First things first.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

He's not, the demands for a ceasefire have been squarely directed at Israel.

Hamas have exceeded the Israeli kill rate of civilians on one single day in the last month. If Israel unilaterally ceased fire, Hamas would barely nudge the dial on civilians killed. If they moved it at all.

and I haven't seen anyone demanding an immediate ceasefire, also demanding the immediate release of all the hostages.......funny that.....

The only hostages getting killed are by Israeli bombs.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Which is it? Crush obliterate Gaza because Hamas should be crushed (is that the strategic objective?), or just crush them until Hamas release hostages (a substantively different objective)?

I don't the releasing of the hostages would stop Israel, but it may make them open to a temporary cease fire, and or a string of cease fires enabling people to leave, aid to get it in etc.

Certainly nothing I've heard from the Israeli Government supports the claim that the release of the hostages is the primary objective.

It's one of them, Netanyahu said so in his speech last week.

Since Israel has essentially made the objective something completely unachievable it's a never ending conflict. Which, if you wanted to commit ethnic cleansing but not call it that, would be exactly the type of scenario you'd want to engineer.

Well the problem is that Hamas and pretty much every bordering state would happily ethnically cleanse all Jews, without a second thought.

The two state solution is a non-starter because Palestinians don't want it, and have already turned it down at least once. For Palestinians and Palestinian supporters the only solution is one state solution.....a Palestinian state, from the river to the sea.

Therefore, it is logical that the only solution for Israel is a one state solution...... Israel, from the river to the sea.

Call it what you want.

---------- Post added at 16:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Hamas have exceeded the Israeli kill rate of civilians on one single day in the last month. If Israel unilaterally ceased fire, Hamas would barely nudge the dial on civilians killed. If they moved it at all.

So they should release the hostages then, and there may be room to talk

The only hostages getting killed are by Israeli bombs.

you don't think the hostages should be immediately, unconditionally released?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't the releasing of the hostages would stop Israel, but it may make them open to a temporary cease fire, and or a string of cease fires enabling people to leave, aid to get it in etc.

It's one of them, Netanyahu said so in his speech last week.

Well the problem is that Hamas and pretty much every bordering state would happily ethnically cleanse all Jews, without a second thought.

There’s no real evidence for the claim that any of the states bordering Israel want to ethnically cleanse Jews. It’s a Zionist dog whistle.

The two state solution is a non-starter because Palestinians don't want it, and have already turned it down at least once. For Palestinians and Palestinian supporters the only solution is one state solution.....a Palestinian state, from the river to the sea.

Therefore, it is logical that the only solution for Israel is a one state solution...... Israel, from the river to the sea.

Call it what you want.

It’s definitely a non-starter if Israel are complicit in the political functioning, and funding, of Hamas over the status of the Palestinian authority.

The scenario you describe would be called genocide because that’s what it would be, not because anyone on this forum claimed it so.

So they should release the hostages then, and there may be room to talk

Doesn’t sound like much of a commitment to be honest.

you don't think the hostages should be immediately, unconditionally released?

You asked the question why you don’t hear as many people calling for it. I simply pointed out the biggest threat to the lives of any hostages is the same threat to all the civilians (including women and children) in Gaza. An Israeli bomb.

At some point it’s up to people how they want to expend their energy, and there’s a clear rationale for why a ceasefire is of greater humanitarian importance than the release of hostages. The only rationale for not doing so is valuing a lesser number of Israeli lives above a greater number of Palestinian ones.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s no real evidence for the claim that any of the states bordering Israel want to ethnically cleanse Jews. It’s a Zionist dog whistle.

That’s one of the most laughable statements from you, from any time.

All Jews inhabiting neighbouring states were driven, and Israel ever succumbed to those states in a war, it would be a genocide, a proper genocide.

https://youtu.be/p9YcAEYr7Ww?si=6Ys1VpIbsejpJMkA

It’s definitely a non-starter if Israel are complicit in the political functioning, and funding, of Hamas over the status of the Palestinian authority.

Sorry, you’re going to have to help me out with that.

The scenario you describe would be called genocide because that’s what it would be, not because anyone on this forum claimed it so.

Israel is surrounded on all sides by Islamic Arab states. Egypt has all of Sinai, that could easily accommodate all Palestinians. There wouldn’t have to be a genocide displacing Palestinians to neighbouring Arab states.

But neighbouring Arab states don’t want Palestinians at all.

Israelis don’t have that option, Israelis could not be displaced to neighbouring states as they would all be dead in a few months.

Doesn’t sound like much of a commitment to be honest.

Well, when you’re outgunned and your very survival depends on how you play the few the cards you have, you have play with what you’ve got.

It’s irrelevant, Hamas is a jihadi death cult, so they won’t do it. If good Muslims die they go to heaven so they don’t care if their own people die, if they kill infidels…well they deserve to die anyway.

You asked the question why you don’t hear as many people calling for it. I simply pointed out the biggest threat to the lives of any hostages is the same threat to all the civilians (including women and children) in Gaza. An Israeli bomb.

At some point it’s up to people how they want to expend their energy, and there’s a clear rationale for why a ceasefire is of greater humanitarian importance than the release of hostages. The only rationale for not doing so is valuing a lesser number of Israeli lives above a greater number of Palestinian ones.

I’ll take that as a no. I wasn’t asking for analysis, I was asking you what think and it’s a yes or no answer.

Originally Posted by Pierre

He's not, the demands for a ceasefire have been squarely directed at Israel.

and I haven't seen anyone demanding an immediate ceasefire, also demanding the immediate release of all the hostages.......funny that.....



First things first.

Except for the UN

https://press.un.org/en/2023/ga12555.doc.htm

and 35 Israeli Jewish and Arab Rights Groups

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...b-b77e8a860000

The Pope

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...se-2023-10-29/

Amnesty International

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...ives-humanely/

Oxfam

https://www.oxfam.org/en/open-call-i...nian-territory

The Scottish First Minister

https://www.gov.scot/publications/ce...tical-leaders/

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s one of the most laughable statements from you, from any time.

All Jews inhabiting neighbouring states were driven, and Israel ever succumbed to those states in a war, it would be a genocide, a proper genocide.

https://youtu.be/p9YcAEYr7Ww?si=6Ys1VpIbsejpJMkA

Sorry Pierre I thought history started on October 7. If we are going back further, only to further the Zionist cause, you must permit the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians prior to your arbitrary start date be brought into the debate.

It’s difficult to work out a response to the rest of your post since you seem to be advocating a genocide, something to universally reprehensible the arguments rarely need made, I’ll save the rest of the forum members from the back and forth.

You are only seeing what you want to see, and cherry picking events from a complex history to suit.

Israel already occupies Gaza by any international standard and once they have boots on the ground long term as Netanyahu indicates nobody can be surprised when whatever state apparatus Israel puts in place will becomes a target - and a legitimate under international law given the atrocities committed by Israel in the last month. There’s no victory, military or moral, to be had.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Which is it? Crush obliterate Gaza because Hamas should be crushed (is that the strategic objective?), or just crush them until Hamas release hostages (a substantively different objective)?

Certainly nothing I've heard from the Israeli Government supports the claim that the release of the hostages is the primary objective.

Since Israel has essentially made the objective something completely unachievable it's a never ending conflict. Which, if you wanted to commit ethnic cleansing but not call it that, would be exactly the type of scenario you'd want to engineer.

John, you're no fool yet you're letting yourself down here.

The strategic objective is, obviously, to crush Hamas. But there is pressure on Israel to participate in a ceasefire, which interrupts their strategic objective but with the "reward" of hostage release.

As to your ridiculous assertion of 'ethnic cleansing', you're deliberately omitting recognition of what Hamas is and hence the need to eradicate those murderers.


---------- Post added at 19:21 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Sorry Pierre I thought history started on October 7. If we are going back further, only to further the Zionist cause, you must permit the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians prior to your arbitrary start date be brought into the debate.

It’s difficult to work out a response to the rest of your post since you seem to be advocating a genocide, something to universally reprehensible the arguments rarely need made, I’ll save the rest of the forum members from the back and forth.

You are only seeing what you want to see, and cherry picking events from a complex history to suit.

Israel already occupies Gaza by any international standard and once they have boots on the ground long term as Netanyahu indicates nobody can be surprised when whatever state apparatus Israel puts in place will becomes a target - and a legitimate under international law given the atrocities committed by Israel in the last month. There’s no victory, military or moral, to be had.

You are so persistent in attacking Israel one could be forgiven for thinking you could be on the street demonstrating for Hamas.

No real mention of the atrocities carried out by Hamas. What a shame that you are displaying these colours.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Israel is surrounded on all sides by Islamic Arab states. Egypt has all of Sinai, that could easily accommodate all Palestinians. There wouldn’t have to be a genocide displacing Palestinians to neighbouring Arab states.

But neighbouring Arab states don’t want Palestinians at all.

and why is that?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Except for the UN

https://press.un.org/en/2023/ga12555.doc.htm

Did you read that, or just see the headline on your Google search, and copy and paste it?

“Some” Members of the UN did. The representative of the League of Arab States whilst demanding a Ceasefire certainly doesn’t.

Also

In the same meeting, however, the body failed to adopt an amendment to that resolution that would have unequivocally rejected and condemned the terrorist attacks by Hamas in Israel starting on 7 October.

they couldn’t even agree to unilaterally condemn the atrocities of Oct 7th……….good old UN.

and 35 Israeli Jewish and Arab Rights Groups

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...b-b77e8a860000

I know you didn’t read this one as you have to subscribe to it.

The letter, which isn’t published, and I’ve checked several other sites and still not seen it, doesn’t ask for immediate release of hostages. It asked for a ceasefire and to “work towards” a release of hostages…..very different.


I’ll give the Pope his due………but he is the Pope. Your other links also pass muster.

But in future if you’re just going to do a Google search, and copy the headlines that look like they align with your point, I’ll think even less of you than I do now…………

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Sorry Pierre I thought history started on October 7.

I’ve never said that.

If we are going back further, only to further the Zionist cause, you must permit the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians prior to your arbitrary start date be brought into the debate.

I didn’t set an arbitrary date.

I’m happy to go back to the 16th century BCE if you like.

It’s difficult to work out a response to the rest of your post since you seem to be advocating a genocide, something to universally reprehensible the arguments rarely need made, I’ll save the rest of the forum members from the back and forth.

No it’s quite simple, I break it down even simpler. As we know only a single state solution is acceptable to Palestinians. Relocation of Palestinians is not a genocide, there is ample land in Sinai and other neighbouring Arab states to accommodate Palestinians to enable a single Israeli state solution.

To flip it the other way, to a single Palestinian state solution the Jews cannot relocate anywhere n any neighbouring Arab state, as they would all be killed in a matter of months and that would be genocide.

Quite simple really.

You are only seeing what you want to see, and cherry picking events from a complex history to suit.

no I’m not, as I say, I set no arbitrary date, I’m happy to go back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Israel already occupies Gaza by any international standard and once they have boots on the ground long term as Netanyahu indicates nobody can be surprised when whatever state apparatus Israel puts in place will becomes a target - and a legitimate under international law given the atrocities committed by Israel in the last month. There’s no victory, military or moral, to be had.

Israel only entered Gaza in the last few days. It has not occupied it since 2005

You and I have a different definition of atrocity.

---------- Post added at 20:47 ---------- Previous post was at 20:46 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

and why is that?

Do tell us.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Do tell us.

Last time I tried I was told it was pie in the sky and despite just days later the US Secretary of State telling Israel much of what I suggested was the right thing to do I think I've learnt my lesson, besides which you're the one with the bright ideas, why would you suggest something without being in full receipt of the facts and potential ramifications

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You are so persistent in attacking Israel one could be forgiven for thinking you could be on the street demonstrating for Hamas.

No real mention of the atrocities carried out by Hamas. What a shame that you are displaying these colours.

Israel have killed more than ten times the number of people Hamas have, decimated the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands more.

I’ve no real need to mention the actions of Hamas - it’s been covered extensively. To qualify every criticism of Israel’s failure to adhere to what were, until 4 weeks ago, internationally recognised standards any civilised country should adhere to at war with the criticism of a terrorist organisation is unnecessary. Israel and the Zionist propaganda machine have enough out there, including the paid shills of our political class, my words are unnecessary. Israel’s actions are beyond justification and I’m not participating in such a charade.

I’ve no desire to commit a crime in this country, or any other, so campaigning for Hamas would be foolish. Neither is it consistent with my own beliefs in any case.

Originally Posted by Pierre

…snip…
No it’s quite simple, I break it down even simpler. As we know only a single state solution is acceptable to Palestinians. Relocation of Palestinians is not a genocide, there is ample land in Sinai and other neighbouring Arab states to accommodate Palestinians to enable a single Israeli state solution.
…snip...

That would be an invalid statement - the Palestinian Authority has worked towards a Two State Solution a number of times.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-state-solution

Unless you are stating that Hamas represents all Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, even though they are banned in the West Bank and 74% of the current population of Gaza have never voted for them?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Last time I tried I was told it was pie in the sky and despite just days later the US Secretary of State telling Israel much of what I suggested was the right thing to do I think I've learnt my lesson, besides which you're the one with the bright ideas, why would you suggest something without being in full receipt of the facts and potential ramifications

I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about..

---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

That would be an invalid statement - the Palestinian Authority has worked towards a Two State Solution a number of times.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-state-solution

Unless you are stating that Hamas represents all Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, even though they are banned in the West Bank and 74% of the current population of Gaza have never voted for them?

I urge everyone to read this article, yes you too JFman, because it also validates your stance, and Chris’ and possibly Hugh’s as well.

There is……there is no answer…depressingly……until there is eventually a full on genocide of the Jews.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is...tate-solution/

The result of the current assault, and its most likely aftermath, will not, therefore, be a rejection of Hamas. Unless the occupation of Palestine ends, which is not in prospect, the aftermath will most probably be the emergence of Hamas Mark 2, more violent, more authoritarian and ideologically driven, and possibly more globally focused than before.

= Chris’ and I think JF’s earlier point.

Hamas will not lose the will to fight. Nor will the Palestinian victims of its actions and the Israeli response insist, to any meaningful effect, upon an end to violence. As on the Israeli side of the equation since the horrors of 7 October, a fundamental line has been crossed.

Western rhetoric notwithstanding, there will be no two-state solution, nor much prospect of meaningful steps being taken towards achieving one. Instead, there will be recurring cycles of violence.

Israel will prevail in those conflicts with the Palestinians until, one day, it doesn’t. And when that day comes, even generations from now, the reckoning will be terrible.

I think, as I have said above a couple of times now, this only ends with the eradication of one people from the region, be them Jew or Palestinian.

Palestinians would not be eradicated, as they can migrate to neighbouring states, if Israel fail to protect themselves………they will be exterminated.

[1andrew1]

It's an interesting article but it doesn't state the reason why "Israel will prevail in those conflicts with the Palestinians until, one day, it doesn’t."

The country is in two parts, incredibly poor, has no airport and airforce and its population cannot freely leave the country. Providing it's kept like that then I can't see it can ever prevailing against Israel.