Hamas Israel War

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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

This has, time and again, been answered comprehensively. The only times a suggestion that Israel do not retaliate against a terror organisation arises in the thread is when you, or a very small number of others, put it up as a straw man.

Nobody, anywhere else, in over a thousand posts has said it.

The real question is why some think that Palestinian civilians should be denied the rights and protections in international law that the post-WW2 rules of war set out.

If the Palestinian people rose up right now, and had the capability (they don’t, but it’s hypothetical) to fight back into Israeli civilian areas and decimate those to the ground nobody, anywhere would be saying “nobody is qualified to tell the Palestinian people how to respond to tens of thousands of their people massacred”.

It’d, rightly, be universally condemned. You’d have no shortage of comment from western political leaders.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

Are you drunk, seriously are you, if not it takes a special kind of stupid to draw that conclusion but in case your having a moment of clarity to clarify, if Netanyahu hadn't propped up hamas at the expense of the PA because he and his ilk can't stand the idea of Palestinian statehood hamas might not have been strong enough to carry out the attack

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

This has, time and again, been answered comprehensively. The only times a suggestion that Israel do not retaliate against a terror organisation arises in the thread is when you, or a very small number of others, put it up as a straw man.

Nobody, anywhere else, in over a thousand posts has said it.

The real question is why some think that Palestinian civilians should be denied the rights and protections in international law that the post-WW2 rules of war set out.

If the Palestinian people rose up right now, and had the capability (they don’t, but it’s hypothetical) to fight back into Israeli civilian areas and decimate those to the ground nobody, anywhere would be saying “nobody is qualified to tell the Palestinian people how to respond to tens of thousands of their people massacred”.

It’d, rightly, be universally condemned. You’d have no shortage of comment from western political leaders.

The question hasn't been answered at all. It's been swerved by people who complain about civilian deaths. The only way of avoiding civilian deaths after the Hamas atrocities would have been no retaliation.

You people can't bring yourselves to acknowledge that because it is as impossible to have happened as your unanswerable question as to how many civilian deaths justify Israel's retaliation.



---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Are you drunk, seriously are you, if not it takes a special kind of stupid to draw that conclusion but in case your having a moment of clarity to clarify, if Netanyahu hadn't propped up hamas at the expense of the PA because he and his ilk can't stand the idea of Palestinian statehood hamas might not have been strong enough to carry out the attack

Another swerve from you.

Had Hamas carried out a different type of attack, with no barbarity, might not Israel's retaliation have been different and of lower consequences for the Gazan population.

My 'enough is enough' observation is spot on.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The question hasn't been answered at all. It's been swerved by people who complain about civilian deaths. The only way of avoiding civilian deaths after the Hamas atrocities would have been no retaliation.

You people can't bring yourselves to acknowledge that because it is as impossible to have happened as your unanswerable question as to how many civilian deaths justify Israel's retaliation.

jfman has answered the question quite conclusively. His suggestion sought to provide the maximum long-term security for Israel and to minimise civilian deaths.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

jfman has answered the question quite conclusively. His suggestion sought to provide the maximum long-term security for Israel and to minimise civilian deaths.

John has said nothing to address how Israel should have reacted to the barbaric Hamas attack other than basically imply "not this way".

None of you critics of Israel's retaliation have come up with an answer as to how Israel should have reacted. The barbarity of Hamas is not warranted by Israel's historic treatment of Palestinians.

All you pontificators as to 'long term security for Israel' take little notice of the realities within Israel and its actions in the West Bank. The Ultras are at critical mass and, like the Ayatollahs, are narrow minded and intransigent. Unless the pontificators can suggest how the Ultras can change course, there is no 2 state solution possible and Israel's long term security will significantly depend on military strength. And, if USA flexes its muscles to pressure Israel, things will get 'interesting'.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

John has said nothing to address how Israel should have reacted to the barbaric Hamas attack other than basically imply "not this way".

None of you critics of Israel's retaliation have come up with an answer as to how Israel should have reacted. The barbarity of Hamas is not warranted by Israel's historic treatment of Palestinians.

All you pontificators as to 'long term security for Israel' take little notice of the realities within Israel and its actions in the West Bank. The Ultras are at critical mass and, like the Ayatollahs, are narrow minded and intransigent. Unless the pontificators can suggest how the Ultras can change course, there is no 2 state solution possible and Israel's long term security will significantly depend on military strength. And, if USA flexes its muscles to pressure Israel, things will get 'interesting'.

This is what jfman said

Originally Posted by jfman

Ongoing, persistent, strategic attacks on Hamas people and infrastructure.

This is the same Israel that hunted down the terrorists down after the Munich Olympics, and hunted down Nazis for decades. They know how to play the long game. They’re experts.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

This is what jfman said

Originally Posted by jfman
Ongoing, persistent, strategic attacks on Hamas people and infrastructure.

This is the same Israel that hunted down the terrorists down after the Munich Olympics, and hunted down Nazis for decades. They know how to play the long game. They’re experts.

I previously said, and to which you replied above:

John has said nothing to address how Israel should have reacted to the barbaric Hamas attack other than basically imply "not this way".

None of you critics of Israel's retaliation have come up with an answer as to how Israel should have reacted. The barbarity of Hamas is not warranted by Israel's historic treatment of Palestinians.

All you pontificators as to 'long term security for Israel' take little notice of the realities within Israel and its actions in the West Bank. The Ultras are at critical mass and, like the Ayatollahs, are narrow minded and intransigent. Unless the pontificators can suggest how the Ultras can change course, there is no 2 state solution possible and Israel's long term security will significantly depend on military strength. And, if USA flexes its muscles to pressure Israel, things will get 'interesting'.

First, I thank you for taking the trouble to dig out your best shot at putting forward John's argument.

My problem with that is:

1. The first sentence is too short to have contextual meaning.

2. The second sentence does nothing to address the specifics of 7-Oct.

[jfman]

I’ve also commented on Israel and securing it’s own border which will do far more to improve the safety and security of Israelis and Jews around the world than bombarding the population of Gaza into a humanitarian crisis on the Egyptian border.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’ve also commented on Israel and securing it’s own border which will do far more to improve the safety and security of Israelis and Jews around the world than bombarding the population of Gaza into a humanitarian crisis on the Egyptian border.

That Israel hadn't secured its border isn't in question.
The government owe the public big time and, I hope will pay the price electorally.

But it is the question of Hamas' barbarity to which Israel has retaliated that you and others swerve. Again, should Israel have NOT retaliated? How else would Hama be eliminated?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That Israel hadn't secured its border isn't in question.
The government owe the public big time and, I hope will pay the price electorally.

But it is the question of Hamas' barbarity to which Israel has retaliated that you and others swerve. Again, should Israel have NOT retaliated? How else would Hama be eliminated?

You’ve had your questions answered multiple times over.

The straw men of no retaliation, and “eliminating” Hamas as a goal that can be achieved in this conflict, once again rear their heads.

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Making up nonsense I never said just makes you look a muppet.
You can, of course, stop posting in the topic anytime you want to.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

None of you critics of Israel's retaliation have come up with an answer as to how Israel should have reacted. The barbarity of Hamas is not warranted by Israel's historic treatment of Palestinians.

Here's my last answer to your question: https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1059

As you imply, the key to this is the US who have a considerable degree of control & influence over Israel esp. in the area of military aid. If they exercise this leverage, like George Bush Snr did in 1991:

George H.W. Bush’s pressure on Israel provides model for progressives

HuffPost, May 2021

Even as Thursday’s cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian militia Hamas brings an end to the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed, there are signs that the recent violence could have a long-term effect on U.S. policy in the region.

Namely, the high civilian death toll of the Israeli bombing campaign ― conducted in response to a barrage of rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel ― has breathed new life into calls for a reassessment of the United States’ financial and diplomatic support for Israel.

Proponents of imposing tougher conditions on the United States’ annual $3.8 billion military aid package to Israel are now concentrated mostly on the political left. But the most recent U.S. president to actually use the threat of withheld aid to change Israeli policy was Republican George H.W. Bush.

Although the circumstances today are not identical, Bush’s showdown with Israel in 1991 over the terms of U.S. loan guarantees serves as an illustration of what a more evenhanded U.S. approach to the conflict could look like. Bush withheld the loan guarantees until he was satisfied that the money borrowed with U.S. assistance would not go toward Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories.

“Bush established consequences for bad behavior, and he got results,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. “It can happen again.”

At the very least, progressives see Bush’s actions as a useful reminder that renegotiating U.S. aid to Israel is not an extreme, left-wing idea.

“The issue of leveraging U.S. aid to Israel has become so far dragged in the direction of radical foreign policy hawks that people forget how common-sense of a position it was just a few decades ago,” said Waleed Shahid, a spokesperson for Justice Democrats, a left-wing group that has helped unseat a number of hawkish Democrats.

then there could be hope ...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Here's my last answer to your question: https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=1059

As you imply, the key to this is the US who have a considerable degree of control & influence over Israel esp. in the area of military aid. If they exercise this leverage, like George Bush Snr did in 1991:

George H.W. Bush’s pressure on Israel provides model for progressives



then there could be hope ...

This was your 'answer' :

What should Israel's response have been? It should have been considered, measured and surgical. It should have used world opinion to help pursue Hamas leadership & funding, in the same way Putin was sanction after invading Ukraine. It should have stopped the illegal ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and removed the settlements installed over the last 20 years.

"Considered, measured, surgical": Means nothing because you have not translated that into anything feasible and tangible.

"It should have used world opinion to help pursue Hamas leadership & funding, in the same way Putin was sanction after invading Ukraine. Il": Also means nothing because 'world opinion' varies considerably; it's woolly, fluffy and devoid of likelihood of results. As to Putin being sanctioned - what's wrong with you? Putin heads a powerful country. What sanctions are you talking about? Btw, Putin's winning the Ukraine situation in the sense that Ukraine can never beat Russia.

"It should have stopped the illegal ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and removed the settlements installed over the last 20 years."
: What kind of Israeli retaliation is that? Of course it might have prevented militant attacks but that doesn't deal with the question of how, in reality, Israel should have reacted to Hams' barbarism.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This was your 'answer' :

"Considered, measured, surgical": Means nothing because you have not translated that into anything feasible and tangible.

"It should have used world opinion to help pursue Hamas leadership & funding, in the same way Putin was sanction after invading Ukraine. Il": Also means nothing because 'world opinion' varies considerably; it's woolly, fluffy and devoid of likelihood of results. As to Putin being sanctioned - what's wrong with you? Putin heads a powerful country. What sanctions are you talking about? Btw, Putin's winning the Ukraine situation in the sense that Ukraine can never beat Russia.

"It should have stopped the illegal ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and removed the settlements installed over the last 20 years."
: What kind of Israeli retaliation is that? Of course it might have prevented militant attacks but that doesn't deal with the question of how, in reality, Israel should have reacted to Hams' barbarism.

Your pretence that these statements have no meaning certainly goes some way to explain your flawed conclusion that there is only a binary approach of do this or do nothing.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Your pretence that these statements have no meaning certainly goes some way to explain your flawed conclusion that there is only a binary approach of do this or do nothing.

That's not correct. I've asked people who have reached a conclusion (Israel's doing wrong) to wind back to zero Palestinian casualties and then what should Israel has done.

Ian has offered woolly, fluffy answers with no anchor in reality.

You've never answered my question. So, I'll ask it again with some added context:

Hamas has invaded Israel and brutally murdered 1200 people in the most barbaric manner. At that point, what should Israel have done given that Hamas hides among the civilian population?