A Political Thread pt. 2

[Welsh Exile]

Both sides are at fault but the fact remains, Israel are the ones with the power and at least claiming to be a modern society. Hamas are at fault for frequent acts of terrorism and definitely do use civilians as human shields to try to protect themselves from retaliation. However this is too often framed as Hamas does something, Israel reacts, everyone gets angry, it settles down after Israel have blown up lots of stuff and then nothing until the next Hamas attack. It ignores that in between these big events, Hamas constantly launch much smaller attacks and Israel is constantly persecuting people in the west bank, driving thousands from their homes and allowing "settlers" to literally get away with murder as they constantly steal land from the locals. This last bit is glossed over all the time but Israel has overseen the forces displacement and murder of 10's of thousands of Gazans and people in the west bank during the periods in which nothing is reported. They are not just the victims they try to pretend they are.

In the past Israel has violated the security of western countries, including their agents setting off a bomb in a western nation to kill an "enemy of Israel" with zero regard for collateral damage. This was sponsored by the state. Nothing suggests they would not do this again at the drop of a hat. Innocents were routinely killed as Mossad were more than happy to use bombs in public places for their assassinations.

Yeah a lot of that is fair. I think Isreal's conduct and expansion into the West Bank is indefensible and as I say any peace talks in the future will have to include Isreal pulling out of the West Bank entirely.

I just think Hamas are a special breed of scum to be honest. They're cowardly and if you put them up against the ANC or the IRA there's no comparison. It's like night and day. Sure the IRA and ANC targeted civilians but no where near as much as military targets and at the end of the day Hamas entire remit is kill civilians, their own ones included. This is an important distinction, for me anyway.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It ignores that in between these big events, Hamas constantly launch much smaller attacks

This is the thing I don't get with the calls for a cease fire - Hamas have no interest in a cease fire (and broke the humanitarian aid cease fire a few weeks ago on its first day, and multiple times throughout)
Hezbollah are now firing multiple missiles into Israel on the daily too

What Israel are doing is wrong, there's no question in that, but what people are calling for is for them to just sit back and let hundreds of rockets fire onto them in perpetuity

Israel won't stop until Hamas no longer run the Strip(/exist)
Hamas won't stop while Jews still live in the middle east(/the world, considering they're buddy buddy with the Houthis who expressly have that as their aim)

What's the solution? Cease fire while the strip vote on who they want to lead them (which will be Hamas)?


I imagine it'll be an America-in-Afghanistan situation where the bloodshed will continue until they lose the appetite (/funding) for it, withdraw and claim victory, Hamas retake control and continue on, nothing gets solved in our lifetimes

 

[Amiga500]

I'm curious what you think Isreal should've done in response to October 7th. Judging by a lot of comments I've seen on line Isreal should've just kinda taken it on the chin or at least should constantly adhere to ceasefires ad infinitum until another attack. I feel that other countries wouldn't be held to the standard Isreal are.

I don't like Netenyahu and I lean Palestinian on this conflict but at the one end you have your Ben Shapiro's where Isreal can do no wrong and on the other you have people that think Isreal have no right to exist and should just be genocided out of existence or kindly told to **** off. There's no sensible middle ground these days but then this is true of a lot of politics in general.

Leaving aside the high degree of probability that Netenyahu knew and made a political gambit to ignore the warnings to boost Likud.

Also leaving aside the historical path taken by Netenyahu et al in ensuring Hamas were supported by hardcore Zionists to ensure both sides became polarised to try and ensure there would never be a two-state solution.


Any response should be both targeted and proportionate.
Very hard to argue that either of those has been the case in what appears to be a campaign of at best ethnic cleansing.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The thing the article misses is that the corrupt supreme court do not give a damn about appearances of impropriety, criminality or inconsistency. Multiple judges have taken actions that are outright illegal and as a minimum would see them disbarred at any other level of the judiciary. The conservative judges all said under oath that Roe vs Wade was settled law and they would not try to overturn it, right before overturning it. Lying under oath is also a crime for which they have not been punished.

They will more than happily create whatever bullshit reason they want to defend Trump knowing they are untouchable.

True and this is the opinion of a Democrat.

It's just beggars belief that Trump can still be the main Republican candidate and can still appeal based on semantics of whether this amendment should apply? Of course it should; everyone knows he is an insurrectionist and why wouldn't the drafters not have wanted it to apply to the office of President.

 

[Amiga500]

At this point, probably the most stable and workable solution is for Israel to actually clear Gaza.

Then the international community need to grow a set and force them (Israel) to ensure people who'd identify as Palestinians have equal rights under Israeli law and allow them to reclaim the land they were evicted from over a prescribed number of years.

Obviously, encroachments into West Bank would have to end too.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Leaving aside the high degree of probability that Netenyahu knew and made a political gambit to ignore the warnings to boost Likud.

Also leaving aside the historical path taken by Netenyahu et al in ensuring Hamas were supported by hardcore Zionists to ensure both sides became polarised to try and ensure there would never be a two-state solution.


Any response should be both targeted and proportionate.
Very hard to argue that either of those has been the case in what appears to be a campaign of at best ethnic cleansing.

What does a targeted, proportionate response mean and look like?

I also find the ethnic cleansing argument doesn't stack up. 20k deaths (which is horrible obviously) but Isreal have dropped, apparently, 30k bombs. That's not indiscriminate bombing in a densely populated area. We wiped out about the same amount of people in Dresden in 1 day. Isreal have had almost 3 months.

The only people who have been open about wanting to ethnically cleanse or genocide the other are Hamas who are quite proud of that aim. If Isreal are deliberately targeting civilians they're doing a pretty bad job of it looking at the amount of bombs dropped to the amount of deaths (approximately 1% of the population) and that's ignoring that a good amount of those have been killed as a result of Hamas using human shields.

 

[Amiga500]

What does a targeted, proportionate response mean and look like?

One that consists of killing Hamas members and little else. If the conditions do not exist to single out Hamas members without a high degree of collateral damage, either wait or create the conditions.

I also find the ethnic cleansing argument doesn't stack up. 20k deaths (which is horrible obviously) but Isreal have dropped, apparently, 30k bombs. That's not indiscriminate bombing in a densely populated area. We wiped out about the same amount of people in Dresden in 1 day. Isreal have had almost 3 months.

The only people who have been open about wanting to ethnically cleanse or genocide the other are Hamas who are quite proud of that aim. If Isreal are deliberately targeting civilians they're doing a pretty bad job of it looking at the amount of bombs dropped to the amount of deaths (approximately 1% of the population) and that's ignoring that a good amount of those have been killed as a result of Hamas using human shields.

Ethnic Cleansing != Genocide

Also, there are precision guided munitions now, not the same as WW2 where PGMs were in their utter infancy and limited to a few radio controlled glider bombs.

The IDF have told the people to get out - then bombed the **** out of the areas. They're forcing everyone out of North Gaza and no doubt will look to move settlers in - that's textbook ethnic cleansing.


Going back several years now, but Hamas were not always in power in Gaza. Why did Fatah lose their majority and how did Hamas become the major player?

 

[Welsh Exile]

One that consists of killing Hamas members and little else. If the conditions do not exist to single out Hamas members without a high degree of collateral damage, either wait or create the conditions.



Ethnic Cleansing != Genocide

Also, there are precision guided munitions now, not the same as WW2 where PGMs were in their utter infancy and limited to a few radio controlled glider bombs.

The IDF have told the people to get out - then bombed the **** out of the areas. They're forcing everyone out of North Gaza and no doubt will look to move settlers in - that's textbook ethnic cleansing.


Going back several years now, but Hamas were not always in power in Gaza. Why did Fatah lose their majority and how did Hamas become the major player?

Yeah this is what I thought. You think, because "Isreal bad" that they should have done noting in response and just let their civilian population be slaughtered at will. I don't think this is something any country, or reasonable person, would accept.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

What does a targeted, proportionate response mean and look like?

I also find the ethnic cleansing argument doesn't stack up. 20k deaths (which is horrible obviously) but Isreal have dropped, apparently, 30k bombs. That's not indiscriminate bombing in a densely populated area. We wiped out about the same amount of people in Dresden in 1 day. Isreal have had almost 3 months.

The only people who have been open about wanting to ethnically cleanse or genocide the other are Hamas who are quite proud of that aim. If Isreal are deliberately targeting civilians they're doing a pretty bad job of it looking at the amount of bombs dropped to the amount of deaths (approximately 1% of the population) and that's ignoring that a good amount of those have been killed as a result of Hamas using human shields.

We are way past the point of a peaceful solution. You'd have to wipe out the parties in charge.

 

[Welsh Exile]

We are way past the point of a peaceful solution. You'd have to wipe out the parties in charge.

Agreed. The religious extremism onboth sides makes it impossible even without October 7th. They all need to go. I'll post my buddy Hitchens again for a laugh.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yeah this is what I thought. You think, because "Isreal bad" that they should have done noting in response and just let their civilian population be slaughtered at will. I don't think this is something any country, or reasonable person, would accept.

Leaving aside the high degree of probability that Netenyahu knew and made a political gambit to ignore the warnings to boost Likud.

I don't think this should be left aside. Or the constant land grabs. Or the decades long siege of Gaza.

Any argument that has 7 October 2023 as the start of any of this is, intentionally or not, victimising the oppressive and terrorist regime in Israel.

A lot of discourse on here saying that there's no possible solution or that it requires changes in both regimes. A solution starts with the US, UK and EU stopping pandering to the Israeli government and allowing them freedom to commit war crimes and to make it clear that a solution needs to be made and it can't involve the unnecessary death of innocent people.

Hamas are a relatively primitive force contained in a tiny strip of land. Between the Israelis and their aforementioned allies they have enough intelligence and spec ops resources to attack at source to devasting effect. It's not what they want though, no land or resources for them in that solution.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I don't think this should be left aside. Or the constant land grabs. Or the decades long siege of Gaza.

Any argument that has 7 October 2023 as the start of any of this is, intentionally or not, victimising the oppressive and terrorist regime in Israel.

A lot of discourse on here saying that there's no possible solution or that it requires changes in both regimes. A solution starts with the US, UK and EU stopping pandering to the Israeli government and allowing them freedom to commit war crimes and to make it clear that a solution needs to be made and it can't involve the unnecessary death of innocent people.

Hamas are a relatively primitive force contained in a tiny strip of land. Between the Israelis and their aforementioned allies they have enough intelligence and spec ops resources to attack at source to devasting effect. It's not what they want though, no land or resources for them in that solution.

While I'd love for the us to stand up to the Israeli government, I still dont think it would end in a peaceful solution. Israel has nutters in charge who'd rather go down swinging than accept reality.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

True and this is the opinion of a Democrat.

It's just beggars belief that Trump can still be the main Republican candidate and can still appeal based on semantics of whether this amendment should apply? Of course it should; everyone knows he is an insurrectionist and why wouldn't the drafters not have wanted it to apply to the office of President.

The argument that the president never takes an oath to defend the Constitution and that somehow the 14th doesn't apply to the president due to semantics is perhaps the most ridiculous of all the ridiculous defences they can offer. They could just straight up say they don't think what Trump did amounts to insurrection and that kills all the challenges easily requiring minimal attempt to explain themselves. The idea that somehow post civil war they didn't want any of the Confederates taking positions of power again but completely excluded THE single most powerful post in the entire country from this criteria is just so ridiculous.

They also try to claim that Trump needs to be found guilty in court to have been part of an insurrection, ignoring that when this amendment was originally applied, not a single one of the Confederates were first found guilty of insurrection in court. They also try to claim somehow it would need Congressional approval, despite that not being a provision anywhere and the very existence of the amendment is the only approval needed from Congress.

Argh the crass hypocrisy and shameless corruption really does my head in. I miss having a right wing that I simply disagreed with politically rather than one that is utterly corrupt to it's very core, where all values and integrity have gone out the window, shameless lying is the go-to response for everything and the complete absence of any sort of rational thinking among the supporters.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I honestly don't think the Israelis give a **** to be honest. Sure they would rather international (American really) support but I don't think it would much difference but who knows.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Well as soon as Israel begin to lose international support it leaves them very vulnerable to their neighbours. It's definitely playing with fire but Israel are doing that already. I don't think they sacrifice their own land and people for the sake of Gaza or the West Bank put a leash on them and they'll react accordingly.

 

[General Melchett]

I honestly don't think the Israelis give a **** to be honest. Sure they would rather international (American really) support but I don't think it would much difference but who knows.

I think the minute America pulls back from supporting Israel the the 'actors in the region' like Iran (and all their terrorist affiliates) will see Israel as fair game if they no longer have Israel's back. America is essentially Israel's insurance policy which reduces the risk of the conflict spreading wider in the region.

I also think that next year's election in the US is a factor. The Republicans are very pally with Netenyahu and Biden has to be seen as supporting Israel otherwise it'll cost him politically. This is a window of opportunity for Netenyahu to remove the two state solution as a option while at the same time go for regime change in Gaza & the West Bank.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I don't think this should be left aside. Or the constant land grabs. Or the decades long siege of Gaza.

Any argument that has 7 October 2023 as the start of any of this is, intentionally or not, victimising the oppressive and terrorist regime in Israel.

A lot of discourse on here saying that there's no possible solution or that it requires changes in both regimes. A solution starts with the US, UK and EU stopping pandering to the Israeli government and allowing them freedom to commit war crimes and to make it clear that a solution needs to be made and it can't involve the unnecessary death of innocent people.

Hamas are a relatively primitive force contained in a tiny strip of land. Between the Israelis and their aforementioned allies they have enough intelligence and spec ops resources to attack at source to devasting effect. It's not what they want though, no land or resources for them in that solution.

I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that October 7th is that start of everything but I can see how it was taken that way.

I'm no military expert but I don't think, especially given Hamas' tactics, that they could special ops Hamas into oblivion whether that's tactical strikes or on ground special forces but I'm happy to listen to any military people on here correct me but the analysis I've listened to suggests this is not realistic.

I think we could and should at this stage be doing more to pressure Isreal and I'd like to think this is happening behind the scenes but Netenyahu is a crazy motherfucker.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I think the minute America pulls back from supporting Israel the the 'actors in the region' like Iran (and all their terrorist affiliates) will see Israel as fair game if they no longer have Israel's back. America is essentially Israel's insurance policy which reduces the risk of the conflict spreading wider in the region.

Possibly. High stakes though man. I mean, would you risk seeing how that played out? We could obviously bluff it a bit and step in if things got out of hand but I don't know, could be a messy one.

 

[General Melchett]

Possibly. High stakes though man. I mean, would you risk seeing how that played out? We could obviously bluff it a bit and step in if things got out of hand but I don't know, could be a messy one.

Agree it's high stakes but if international pressure on the US reaches a point where it will likely cost Biden (the Democrats) politically in next year's election then he may not be able to afford to continue supporting Israel. Its a balancing act and Biden is in a very tricky situation - almost no win as whichever path he takes will it'll cost him politically and the Republicans will be ready to hammer him if he pulls away from supporting Israel.

 

[Al Bangor]