Leeds Ram

Well then you get potentially a Nasser like situation which is hardly good. Again, it depends from the perspective you come from and I think we have quite different ones on this particular case 🙂 I think when discussing absolute merits, you can't really divorce actions from context of the time they exist in to make a valid moral judgement. I don't think Israel has been entirely indiscriminate in the same way that Assad has been, but the barriers previously erected in terms of discrimination of military force have definitely been lowered. There are also completely valid questions about war crimes, even if they currently stop some way short of genocide. Of course, to those who have lost loved ones intent does not matter nor does whether the act was strictly in the bounds of international law. But I wouldn't be making this argument to that family... I'm making this argument on a derby county forum. I don't think it's Orwellian to mention it at all. I'm not changing definitions to mean something else or to assert something didn't happen when it definitely did. I'm also not being morally hypocritical in saying one thing and practising another.

You're someone who clearly can't engage in good faith so I won't bother responding further.

Yeah it is a bit of a pain if you live a bit far out and/or don't drive. Ideally, I'd prefer to just go back to them but I genuinely don't have the time to make the trip before the game. I figured I might as well try to give them to someone on here so they don't go to waste 🙂

I believe the ticket office would give me a full refund, but I am currently not in a position where I can make it to the ticket office before the game as I am moving house while working.

I didn't say the leaders of the coup were only concerned with constitutionality. I was more highlighting that Mossadegh was merely a normal democratic leader is a bit of a myth precisely because he's been lionised as a result of his determination to get Iran's fair share from her natural resources. It's perfectly true to say Mossadegh was an anti-imperialist who wanted a fair deal and was also someone who stretched the boundaries of his office in doing so. Again if you read Samuel Moyn, Israel was historically one of the first leading countries to accept legal limitations on how she conducted warfare in the modern era. So I think merely comparing Israel to those groups/leaders is a bit of an error.

Samuel Moyn is a seriously well respected historian who is very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause for statehood. It's hardly cherry picking to be citing him.

I actually believe in intervention as a method of helping citizens of those countries free themselves from oppressive tyrannical regimes. I don't believe the US's support for authoritarians is good and I've criticised Obama's policy of backing Sisi's coup over the Muslim Brotherhood and letting Assad gas his own citizens. I believe people in those nations deserve the same freedoms we demand for ourselves, that doesn't mean aligning myself with regimes or groups who are reprehensible. Giving the Palestinians a state with a Hamas led regime, or a regime where Hamas is a significant player is playing with geopolitical dynamite. Anyone who has read or knows anything about the region and the situation knows that. I didn't discredit Pappe, I said some historians, even in the 'new historians' field critique him which they do. I linked an article as such. However, I also highlighted that a lot of scholars, including some of my old lecturers, regularly use his materials and rate him. I gave a fair analysis of what I think. I don't buy what Finkelstein says and I've yet to know anyone who I respect on these questions who gives him any serious thought. It's not Hitler level for me. Again, your failure to distinguish between genocide with camps all over Europe, adapted killing techniques, dedicated murder squadrons, mass roundups for shooting and gassing and mass enslavement with a conflict in an urban environment of which many of the citizens are very young highlights your inability to separate out and distinguish between different types of actions. You can say what Israel has done is bad (I've written published articles where I've said this) and even illegal in the conduct of war but that doesn't mean it automatically constitutes genocide. I've yet to see a reasonable case be made that what has happened is a genocide according to the legal definitions of the term. I do believe Palestinians, like any people, have a right to defend themselves. I don't believe now that a Palestinian state is a viable political option and I do believe we're entering a new stage of the conflict where options will be limited because of the way both sides perceive one another. Of course I want Israel to give ground to Palestinians and I want Palestinains to recognise they won't get everything they want (like custody of Jerusalem) and settle for a bit less in return for an actual state and build from there. But that won't happen any time soon.

It's not particularly weak when you consider Mossadegh was already stretching the limits of constitutionality in his rule and there was a distinct fear parliamentary rule would collapse entirely. Now of course we can say the people who replaced him (not just with our help but willing Iranians) were definitely no better and almost certainly somewhat worse but the counterfactual can't be completely discounted. I think also not just that Israel is democratic but it's certainly no more brutal in its method of war than its neighbours and history suggests is far more willing to accept legal limitations on its methodology of war when judges have limited state actions. I agree we still need to hold democracies to account, there is a whole theory about whether democracies practice war differently to authoritarians inherently but I'm not totally convinced by it. However, the reality is no matter how grim we consider Israel's actions to be it is certainly not as bad as all of its neighbours over the years.

I literally teach about terrorism at a university (where we use Israel and Palestine as an example) so I am well aware of the literature on terrorism, the distinction between strategic and ideological groups and the reasons why terrorist groups use violence as a method. I do not think Hamas are as you describe but neither do I believe they are particularly savvy operators for a terrorist group. I do not believe October 7th had anything to do with previously relatively small death tolls in what has been labelled a civil conflict no. I believe as I have stated before October 7th was done for other reasons as do numerous other reputable analysts (working at the Atlantic council and brookings for instance) who I have posted links to.

That's my take and an expert's take on warfare and its legal limitations yeah. But fair play if you don't want to continue.

I have two adult tickets for port vale I am happy to sell for what I paid for them.

It's also likely not genocide given the legal definition and requirements of the word to meet the criteria. Eminent yale historian samuel moyn who has written a fantastic book called 'humane' on the history of warfare has spoken about how Israel still maintains legal limitations of war which in comparison to warfare from the 1950's-1970's is far less destructive.

it would likely qualify as more than a civil conflict due to the death toll right now I would say. I'd call it an intra-state war. Hamas has an armed wing of the organisation which is dedicated to fighting.

I didn't speak to the moral questions about the war merely the fact that Israel qualifies as a democracy.

Most of this isn't really addressing what I said. I don't even think they're that smart, more desperate and bad. I didn't say it gives them a free pass, I merely said in the region they are by a long way the most democratic country.

I mean the whole mossadegh thing is quite complicated if you read around it in a bit of depth. Potentially would have been a democratic Iran but there is an argument to say it would have turned into another form of arab nationalist dictatorship in the end anyway.

You're confusing wartime responses with whether a state is democratic or not. One is not necessarily congruent with the other.

I just think you're giving what is a shameless violent ruthless cowardly terrorist group way too much credit tbh. Whether you like it or not, Israel is the most democratic state in the region by a pretty long chalk.

I don't think the attack had anything to do with exposing Israel's aggression to the wider world or exposing western hypocrisy. I think, like they were in the 1990's, they were terrified of losing legitimacy as Israel started to strike deals with countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia. They saw their political space shrinking ever tighter and thought this was an attempt to appear relevant again and give them some oxygen. As you say, they don't give a fig for the lives of Palestinians either.