Hamas Israel War

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

While I firmly believe - and have repeatedly stated - that the ‘who’s to blame for what’ question is impossibly complex to answer given the causal link from one event to another, stretching back more than 150 years …

I absolutely reject your continued attempts to draw actual or moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas’ actions over the past fortnight. Sure there’s room to debate what degree of military response is warranted on Israel’s part, but that’s because they’re operating a uniformed army with a chain of command and a plan of action that quite obviously shows awareness of international legal obligations as well as intense political pressure from allies. Their response is considered and calibrated. Argue they got the balance wrong by all means, but suggestions that their actions amount to the equivalent of Hamas are profoundly un-serious.

Hamas, to the extent it had a plan, entered Israel with the intention of behaving in as barbaric a way as possible, to the greatest extent possible. Beheading, torture, rape, execution of parents in front of children; execution of children in front of parents.

The behaviour of Israel in Gaza this week *is*not*the*same* as the behaviour of Hamas in Israel last week. The fact that those killed in Gaza might not see it that way is, tragically, besides the point. There is simply no comparison between no-holds-barred barbarism and calculated military action.

It’s this bit that actually makes it worse.

A nation state with all the resources it has to secure it’s borders and target Hamas and other terror groups chooses to displace over a million people, levelling huge swathes of Gaza, taking some of the poorest people in the world and destroying what little they have. Considered and calculated.

And, from the somewhat perverse viewpoints of some, Palestinians should be grateful for this work towards being “demographically neutralised”.

How people in Gaza feel - and how they are treated - is absolutely the point.

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s this bit that actually makes it worse.

A nation state with all the resources it has to secure it’s borders and target Hamas and other terror groups chooses to displace over a million people, levelling huge swathes of Gaza, taking some of the poorest people in the world and destroying what little they have. Considered and calculated.

And, from the somewhat perverse viewpoints of some, Palestinians should be grateful for this work towards being “demographically neutralised”.

How people in Gaza feel - and how they are treated - is absolutely the point.

I don’t think Gazans owe any more thanks to Israel than the residents of northwestern Germany owed the RAF thanks for over-flying them on their way to Berlin. War is horrific and nobody should be thankful to be involved in it or grateful to their enemy if they narrowly escape it. That said, I’m not at all convinced *most* posters in this discussion have said anything warranting the caricature you’ve posited here.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

The phrase ‘suck it up’ will deservedly haunt you on this forum for quite some time.


.

OK, just to clear this up, it seems that the phrase which has proved controversial to some has different meanings (just like ‘jihad’ apparently).

My meaning was ‘learn from it’ and that’s exactly what all those who think it’s a great idea to vote for a terrorist organisation should ponder.

I did not mean that phrase as insulting, although I get why some did.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So you're arguing for assassination by Israel in a foreign country. Might that set the wider conflagration off?

No I'm not, going after them doesn't have to mean kill them, it means make their lives hard, get them deported, maybe find a way to jail them

Sure - right thing to do in principle. But if those accounts are in Doha with an Arab bank, what then?

Sanction the bank, there's a fair few oligarchs like Mikhail Friedman who'll testify how easy it is to turn off the financial taps

Nice in theory. But won't the Palestinians just call it "western propaganda"? Is your suggestion realistic?

They didn't when Arafat died, they knew Fatah was corrupt just by looking at what cars they drove past in whilst the majority had nothing and were sitting in the dust the fancy cars threw up

Interesting. Does Fatah have the appetite or the means to make that opposition work? Or is Israel so much the enemy that Fatah will not take up your suggestion?

They better have the appetite or else things will get ugly on the west bank soon enough and Israel aren't stupid they know Fatah had the same destruction of Israel type charter and now they don't, even going as far as legitimising Israels right to exist by recognising their right to govern in certain areas, if they're not supported hamas will take over just like they did in Gaza

Isn't that pie-in-the sky? Who would appoint that leader? Why isn't there a better leader of Fatah now?

Abbas isn't great, he's embezzling knew no bounds early in his tenure but he's been there a long time and that in itself is stability for an organisation in disarray, his and Fatahs big problem is he's 87, he can't have that long left, actually decay might have been a better word than disarray given how old most of the leadership is. A guy called Mahmud Aloul is heir apparent and it's doubtful he's up to it

---------- Post added at 01:49 ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

OK, just to clear this up, it seems that the phrase which has proved controversial to some has different meanings (just like ‘jihad’ apparently).

My meaning was ‘learn from it’ and that’s exactly what all those who think it’s a great idea to vote for a terrorist organisation should ponder.

I did not mean that phrase as insulting, although I get why some did.

Oh well, suck it up

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No I'm not, going after them doesn't have to mean kill them, it means make their lives hard, get them deported, maybe find a way to jail them



Sanction the bank, there's a fair few oligarchs like Mikhail Friedman who'll testify how easy it is to turn off the financial taps



They didn't when Arafat died, they knew Fatah was corrupt just by looking at what cars they drove past in whilst the majority had nothing and were sitting in the dust the fancy cars threw up



They better have the appetite or else things will get ugly on the west bank soon enough and Israel aren't stupid they know Fatah had the same destruction of Israel type charter and now they don't, even going as far as legitimising Israels right to exist by recognising their right to govern in certain areas, if they're not supported hamas will take over just like they did in Gaza



Abbas isn't great, he's embezzling knew no bounds early in his tenure but he's been there a long time and that in itself is stability for an organisation in disarray, his and Fatahs big problem is he's 87, he can't have that long left, actually decay might have been a better word than disarray given how old most of the leadership is. A guy called Mahmud Aloul is heir apparent and it's doubtful he's up to it

---------- Post added at 01:49 ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 ----------



Oh well, suck it up

So there you have it: pie in the sky from The Daddy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

OK, just to clear this up, it seems that the phrase which has proved controversial to some has different meanings (just like ‘jihad’ apparently).

My meaning was ‘learn from it’ and that’s exactly what all those who think it’s a great idea to vote for a terrorist organisation should ponder.

I did not mean that phrase as insulting, although I get why some did.

But what about the 76% of the current population of the Gaza Strip who are under 35, therefore couldn’t have voted for Hamas in 2006, do?

btw, no one (except you, apparently) thinks "suck on that" means "learn from it" - the definition is

that's too bad; deal with it; put up with it; tough luck

exclamation of triumph when you want to rub someone's nose in it

whilst "jihad", on the other hand

1: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty

also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline

2: a crusade for a principle or belief

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But what about the 76% of the current population of the Gaza Strip who are under 35, therefore couldn’t have voted for Hamas in 2006, do?

Those under 35 will also learn from the fact that people voted for a terrorist organisation and what that ultimately meant for their country.

I don’t think that was so difficult to understand.

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

btw, no one (except you, apparently) thinks "suck on that" means "learn from it" - the definition is



whilst "jihad", on the other hand

I don’t much care what you think about this, Hugh. I’m telling you what I meant.

And by the way, different definitions do exist for that phrase but I’m not trawling the dictionaries to make the point. I have better things to do with my time.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But what about the 76% of the current population of the Gaza Strip who are under 35, therefore couldn’t have voted for Hamas in 2006, do?

btw, no one (except you, apparently) thinks "suck on that" means "learn from it" - the definition is

whilst "jihad", on the other hand

Agreed.

Whilst I can't find a dictionary that supports Old Boy's understanding of the "suck on that" phrase; and he's not chosen to provide one either; I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he used the phrase to mean "learn from that".

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But what about the 76% of the current population of the Gaza Strip who are under 35, therefore couldn’t have voted for Hamas in 2006, do?

<SNIP>

Make bombs and feed powder into bullets, perhaps?

[1andrew1]

Interesting to read the comments in bold from the UN Chief.

UN chief denounces ‘clear violations’ of international law in Gaza

António Guterres says Hamas assault ‘did not happen in a vacuum’ but grievances cannot justify violence

UN chief António Guterres condemned “clear violations of international law” in Gaza as the US added to mounting pressure on the Israeli government to pause its bombardment of the besieged strip and allow in more aid.

In his toughest remarks so far about the conduct of the war in Gaza, Guterres told the UN security council on Tuesday that the safety of civilians was paramount.

“Protecting civilians can never mean using them as human shields,” the secretary-general said, adding that it “does not mean ordering more than 1mn people to evacuate to the south, where there is no shelter, no food, no water, no medicine and no fuel, and then continuing to bomb the south itself.”

Guterres also said that Hamas’ deadly assault on southern Israel earlier this month “did not happen in a vacuum”.

“The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation,” he said, though he added that their grievances could not justify the “appalling attacks”. His remarks triggered a furious response from Israeli officials.

Israel’s ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan described the secretary-general’s statement as “shocking” and called on him to resign while foreign minister Eli Cohen cancelled a meeting with Guterres in protest.

Also addressing the security council, US secretary of state Antony Blinken blamed Hamas for using civilians as human shields but also called for “humanitarian pauses” in Israel’s air strikes against targets in Gaza to allow civilians to get out of harm’s way.

EU leaders are also expected to call later this week for a pause in hostilities to let more water, food and medicine into Gaza and to give more time for negotiations mediated by Qatar to secure the release of hostages.

https://www.ft.com/content/61c23c82-...9-ecdebb86c839

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Those under 35 will also learn from the fact that people voted for a terrorist organisation and what that ultimately meant for their country.

I don’t think that was so difficult to understand.

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------



I don’t much care what you think about this, Hugh. I’m telling you what I meant.

And by the way, different definitions do exist for that phrase but I’m not trawling the dictionaries to make the point. I have better things to do with my time.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=suck+on+that

hth…

[Ms NTL]

Since you all are in the sucking business, I posted a suck-ling offer for you in the website section.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=suck+on+that

hth…

It’s a bit boring now.

[Ms NTL]

this is London

https://www.facebook.com/reel/294554...ibextid=kcDB8O

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

this is London

https://www.facebook.com/reel/294554...ibextid=kcDB8O

This is London

https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...ain-suspended/