Hamas Israel War

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I see the real possibility that the same types as Hamas are entering the UK via the small boats.

On your final paragraph, remember that Israel reacted with justifiable fury to the unjustified butchering of 1200 people by Hamas. As I've pointed out the alternative to the civilian casualties was no response. Is that what you're putting forward?

Once again you persist with the flawed binary of what we see now vs no response. Something that you’ve been told on many occasions.

---------- Post added at 23:12 ---------- Previous post was at 23:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Possibly, but I’m not……and I don’t think anyone else on this forum is……qualified to advise the Israeli government and intelligence services how to achieve it and by what means.

I doubt anyone is qualified but if they’re pissing all over the “international rules based order” and committing acts that look closer to ethnic cleansing than strategic targeting of Hamas and it’s infrastructure (an organisation of a mere 20,000) then it’s everyone’s prerogative if they wish to comment from their armchair as (almost) everyone did when Putin invaded Ukraine.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Once again you persist with the flawed binary of what we see now vs no response. Something that you’ve been told on many occasions.

.... by people who cannot say what Israel's response should have been.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

.... by people who cannot say what Israel's response should have been.

I told you what they should've done imho weeks ago and you called it pie in the sky and then guess what happened a few days after that, Antony Blinken repeated several of my points in speech, problem with what I said though was it may have led to a lasting peace and two state solution so it's obviously off the table for both of the extremist factions

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I told you what they should've done imho weeks ago and you called it pie in the sky and then guess what happened a few days after that, Antony Blinken repeated several of my points in speech, problem with what I said though was it may have led to a lasting peace and two state solution so it's obviously off the table for both of the extremist factions

Blinken/Schminken. For the 2-state solution, there's a lot of getting past the fanatical Ultras to do. Utter pie in the sky from both of you.

And how does that apply to the facts have occurred on 07-October?

Actually, what Blinken is on about is "the day after the day after tomorrow" - when Israel's war with Hamas is over,, Abbas takes over in Gaza, and pressure is brought to bear on Israel to deal fairly with the Palestinians. Pigs will fly.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

acts that look closer to ethnic cleansing than strategic targeting of Hamas

Well that would have to be proven.

and it’s infrastructure (an organisation of a mere 20,000) then it’s everyone’s prerogative if they wish to comment from their armchair

size does matter….it seems.

as (almost) everyone did when Putin invaded Ukraine.

“Experts sir……thousands of them”

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

.... by people who cannot say what Israel's response should have been.

I'm confused as jfman has told you what Israel's response should be.

Who, other than Israel, has the right to decide what their response should be ?

Certainly not anyone on this forum.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Who, other than Israel, has the right to decide what their response should be ?

Certainly not anyone on this forum.

Responses have been demanded on occasions to numerous to mention to justify what Israel is doing under the banner of what else can they do but when given they're dismissed as pie in the sky even when the US Secretary of State echos similar and he is someone who will have a big say in what happens and when it does, that's pie in the sky too

---------- Post added at 04:16 ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Blinken/Schminken. For the 2-state solution, there's a lot of getting past the fanatical Ultras to do. Utter pie in the sky from both of you.

And how does that apply to the facts have occurred on 07-October?

Actually, what Blinken is on about is "the day after the day after tomorrow" - when Israel's war with Hamas is over,, Abbas takes over in Gaza, and pressure is brought to bear on Israel to deal fairly with the Palestinians. Pigs will fly.

If they'd done it before there may well not have been an October 7th, Blinken also put in place sanctions to go after the money and he said he was going to cut hamas out of the aid chain as well as Abbas etc basically everything I said, with one extra, they are sanctioning Israeli settler groups and individuals which I think is a good if symbolic gesture.

Oh no not the fanatical unltras, I'm sure the IDF is shitting their pants at the prospect of going up against the gravy seals, I seem to remember the fanatical Ultras not doing much when the gaza settlements were pulled down all those years ago, I did always wonder what those settlements were doing in such a small area of land anyway, not enough room to swing a dead terrorist/ dead child so we'll stick some ideological settlements on there too for good measure, just to ramp up the tension

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

Who, other than Israel, has the right to decide what their response should be ?

Certainly not anyone on this forum.

Might as well close the thread then I guess if we can’t comment on the deaths of thousands of Palestinian women and children and describe it as excessive.

There won’t be anything else happening for the foreseeable future.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Responses have been demanded on occasions to numerous to mention to justify what Israel is doing under the banner of what else can they do but when given they're dismissed as pie in the sky even when the US Secretary of State echos similar and he is someone who will have a big say in what happens and when it does, that's pie in the sky too

---------- Post added at 04:16 ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 ----------



If they'd done it before there may well not have been an October 7th, Blinken also put in place sanctions to go after the money and he said he was going to cut hamas out of the aid chain as well as Abbas etc basically everything I said, with one extra, they are sanctioning Israeli settler groups and individuals which I think is a good if symbolic gesture.

Oh no not the fanatical unltras, I'm sure the IDF is shitting their pants at the prospect of going up against the gravy seals, I seem to remember the fanatical Ultras not doing much when the gaza settlements were pulled down all those years ago, I did always wonder what those settlements were doing in such a small area of land anyway, not enough room to swing a dead terrorist/ dead child so we'll stick some ideological settlements on there too for good measure, just to ramp up the tension

What are you on about?

It's easy for Blinken to pontificate. He does have some levers in terms of aid that the US can provide to Israel. But there are delicate balances here because Iran is the dark shadow in the background who want Israel to be erased. Btw, I've no problem with the symbolic gesture made by Blinken against the Ultra settlers, albeit no more than a gesture. The Ultras need to be dealt with but at 1 million strong, that's nigh on impossible without military action by Israel.

With regard to the second phrase I've highlighted in red, you've really shown yourself up. Your sentiment seems to include a Palestinian tipping point of 'enough is enough' - let's fight Israel. But the barbarity of Hamas has no justification. You might as well be one of the 300,000.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What are you on about?

It's easy for Blinken to pontificate. He does have some levers in terms of aid that the US can provide to Israel. But there are delicate balances here because Iran is the dark shadow in the background who want Israel to be erased. Btw, I've no problem with the symbolic gesture made by Blinken against the Ultra settlers, albeit no more than a gesture. The Ultras need to be dealt with but at 1 million strong, that's nigh on impossible without military action by Israel.

With regard to the second phrase I've highlighted in red, you've really shown yourself up. Your sentiment seems to include a Palestinian tipping point of 'enough is enough' - let's fight Israel. But the barbarity of Hamas has no justification. You might as well be one of the 300,000.

It’s quite something to dismiss the highest level Jew in American politics simply because he recognises there is a gap between what Israel should be doing and reality on the ground.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s quite something to dismiss the highest level Jew in American politics simply because he recognises there is a gap between what Israel should be doing and reality on the ground.

You really disappoint me (in this topic), John.

There is nothing good about what is happening. But you mentioned the key words: 'American Politics'. There's Iranian politics, Russian politics, Israeli politics, Saudi politics, Qatari politics; all in the mix.

At the core of this lies Israel and its existence. Israel (government) has made serious mistakes in their treatment of Palestinians which, I agree, is designed to frustrate a 2-state solution. That design is entirely political due to the Likud-Ultra coalition. Getting them out, is down to the Israeli population and I'm not optimistic given the number of Ultras in the population.

In the light of what I've just written, we seem to converge. But we then diverge as to how Israel should have reacted to the Hamas butchery. And none of you can properly address my question:

Should Israel have done nothing in retaliation for the Hamas atrocities? That would have been the only way of avoiding the civilian casualties.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You really disappoint me (in this topic), John.

There is nothing good about what is happening. But you mentioned the key words: 'American Politics'. There's Iranian politics, Russian politics, Israeli politics, Saudi politics, Qatari politics; all in the mix.

At the core of this lies Israel and its existence. Israel (government) has made serious mistakes in their treatment of Palestinians which, I agree, is designed to frustrate a 2-state solution. That design is entirely political due to the Likud-Ultra coalition. Getting them out, is down to the Israeli population and I'm not optimistic given the number of Ultras in the population.

In the light of what I've just written, we seem to converge. But we then diverge as to how Israel should have reacted to the Hamas butchery. And none of you can properly address my question:

Should Israel have done nothing in retaliation for the Hamas atrocities? That would have been the only way of avoiding the civilian casualties.

Your persistent question at the end has been answered, comprehensively, on a number of occasions.

I framed the his job as such because that’s what it is. Framing it any other way makes it debatable. Would the American Secretary of State hold more clout around the world than the political leaders of Israel, or Jewish leaders of other countries such as Zelensky? Potentially, especially in the current climate of a barely coherent US President when allowed to speak for more than a sound bite.

Would that make him the most influential Jew in world politics? Potentially, but I see no value in sidetracking the debate so framing him within American politics, which ranks every cabinet level position in it’s line of succcession, seemed most straightforward and uncontroversial.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

.... by people who cannot say what Israel's response should have been.

I've told you, others have told you. New pair of reading glasses needed?

---------- Post added at 10:30 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You really disappoint me (in this topic), John.

There is nothing good about what is happening. But you mentioned the key words: 'American Politics'. There's Iranian politics, Russian politics, Israeli politics, Saudi politics, Qatari politics; all in the mix.

At the core of this lies Israel and its existence. Israel (government) has made serious mistakes in their treatment of Palestinians which, I agree, is designed to frustrate a 2-state solution. That design is entirely political due to the Likud-Ultra coalition. Getting them out, is down to the Israeli population and I'm not optimistic given the number of Ultras in the population.

In the light of what I've just written, we seem to converge. But we then diverge as to how Israel should have reacted to the Hamas butchery. And none of you can properly address my question:

Should Israel have done nothing in retaliation for the Hamas atrocities? That would have been the only way of avoiding the civilian casualties.

By accident or design, you have focused on the primary reason lying at the core of this conflict and that is the extreme demands of the Ultra-Zionist factions that have had hands on the levers of power over the decades. It is their religious zealotry that has perverted the agenda in the pursuit of the dream of their biblical Greater Israel. A land cleansed, to the best of their ability, of Arabs.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1948 but refused it:

Why Did Einstein Refuse the Presidency of Israel?

His words were prescient:

David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, met with Einstein in Princeton, hoping to convince the venerable scientist to be the president of Israel. Einstein refused, and the quotes below might give us clues on why he refused.

In a Dec. 4, 1948, letter to The New York Times, Einstein, along with 28 other prominent members of the Jewish community, wrote that the then-current Israeli political party, the Freedom Party, led by Menachem Begin, was “a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

“It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents,” the letter continued.

Referring to the massacre of Arabs by Jews in the village of Deir Yassin, the letter said “the [Jewish] terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely. … The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.”

Further describing the Freedom Party, the letter stated it includes “an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority” and that it bore the “unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a ‘Leader State’ is the goal.”

The letter ended by saying that America should turn its back on Begin and not support “this latest manifestation of fascism.”

But there’s much more. Ten years prior to this letter, Einstein declared at New York's Commodore Hotel that a Jewish state with borders and an army to protect those borders ran counter to “the essential nature of Judaism.” Also, in 1946 he told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on the Palestinian issue, “I cannot understand why it [a Jewish State] is needed. It is connected with narrow-minded and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad.”

In a 1938 speech, Einstein said, “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state.”

And in a quote dating back to the late 1920s Einstein declared, “Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our two thousand years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us.”

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I've told you, others have told you. New pair of reading glasses needed?

---------- Post added at 10:30 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------



By accident or design, you have focused on the primary reason lying at the core of this conflict and that is the extreme demands of the Ultra-Zionist factions that have had hands on the levers of power over the decades. It is their religious zealotry that has perverted the agenda in the pursuit of the dream of their biblical Greater Israel. A land cleansed, to the best of their ability, of Arabs.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1948 but refused it:

Why Did Einstein Refuse the Presidency of Israel?

His words were prescient:

It's by design. I said that the Ultras lie at the core of the problem facing Israel.

But the Ultras do not justify the barbarity of Hamas when they murdered 1200 Israelis.

As regards Einstein, he was entitled to his views; indeed his characterisation of Begin (one of Likud's founders and a terrorist leader in the British Mandate days) was absolutely correct. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an Israel (which was Einstein's view). The UN in 1947 thought there should be an Israel, hence there is an Israel.

But to come back to immediate matters, should Israel not have retaliated against Hamas, thus ensuring no Gazan civilian casualties? Or what?