Palestine

[Comrade 86]

57 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I was merely highlighting was Israeli's thought of the war nothing more. I find both sides (there is overwhelming support in Gaza for the October 7th attacks as well) responses depressing in the search for peace. 

And I merely responded to the point you made, did I not? You could have chosen to do likewise and address the points I made, but instead you've chosen to simply smear the Palestinians further. l think I'll take a rain check on further 'debate' as the whole 'the Arabs are just as bad' schtick isn't remotely compelling for me and I seriously doubt that the Palestinians are sat around completing polls right now anyway. Too busy burying their dead, I'd imagine.

[Alph]

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

So were the Allied forces all murderers? Lots of civilians killed in the World Wars, millions I think. Pretty offensive to bandy around words like that plenty of us have relatives who fought in the wars. 

I think this is why there's an argument that the terms 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' have lost their value and are used more often to kind of support a narrative. This isn't about to be some defence of Hamas by the way. 

There are many cases of attacks on military targets we label terrorism and then attacks on civilian infrastructure that are considered collateral damage. I'm not sure how you measure it. 

I'm genuinely asking, if you take into account some of the comments from Israeli government and look at the pattern of attacks on Gaza could that be considered terrorism (an unlawful use of violence in pursuit of political aims)? Because we have to consider that Hamas are hidden in a densely populated area. 

And then we have the actions in West Bank which imo are more controversial

I would call Hamas terrorists all day long by the way. All day every day. 

Expand this and as mentioned... Hiroshima? The Napalm Strikes and Agent Green in Vietnam? Dresden? The drone strikes in Afghanistan/Iraq? The Russian bombardment of Ukrainian Cities? Where's the line and who decides? In your opinion what would you say?

[PistoldPete]

4 minutes ago, Alpha said:

I think this is why there's an argument that the terms 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' have lost their value and are used more often to kind of support a narrative. This isn't about to be some defence of Hamas by the way. 

There are many cases of attacks on military targets we label terrorism and then attacks on civilian infrastructure that are considered collateral damage. I'm not sure how you measure it. 

I'm genuinely asking, if you take into account some of the comments from Israeli government and look at the pattern of attacks on Gaza could that be considered terrorism (an unlawful use of violence in pursuit of political aims)? Because we have to consider that Hamas are hidden in a densely populated area. 

And then we have the actions in West Bank which imo are more controversial

I would call Hamas terrorists all day long by the way. All day every day. 

Expand this and as mentioned... Hiroshima? The Napalm Strikes and Agent Green in Vietnam? Dresden? The drone strikes in Afghanistan/Iraq? The Russian bombardment of Ukrainian Cities? Where's the line and who decides? In your opinion what would you say?

I actually think that Israel’s attacks are less reckless than say the Allies on Dresden. But it’s different times now we have computers to help teach targets. 
I don’t regard either as murder but probably Dresden was a reckless error by Churchill. 

in answer to another question what is proportionate can only be decided in context of the end game. Hiroshima and Nagasaki unimaginably horrific though they were ended World war 2 which had cost 55 million lives. If the ultimate aim is ever lasting peace in the Middle East who knows what is proportionate. 

[Leeds Ram]

35 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

And I merely responded to the point you made, did I not? You could have chosen to do likewise and address the points I made, but instead you've chosen to simply smear the Palestinians further. l think I'll take a rain check on further 'debate' as the whole 'the Arabs are just as bad' schtick isn't remotely compelling for me and I seriously doubt that the Palestinians are sat around completing polls right now anyway. Too busy burying their dead, I'd imagine.

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-773791

https://www.awrad.org/en/article/10719/Wartime-Poll-Results-of-an-Opinion-Poll-Among-Palestinians-in-the-West-Bank-and-Gaza-Strip 

 It's not a smear and there have been opinion surveys conducted. I was making the broader point that conflict has a tendency to polarise opinions further entrenching pre-conceived differences. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Leeds Ram

[Alph]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I actually think that Israel’s attacks are less reckless than say the Allies on Dresden. But it’s different times now we have computers to help teach targets. 
I don’t regard either as murder but probably Dresden was a reckless error by Churchill. 

in answer to another question what is proportionate can only be decided in context of the end game. Hiroshima and Nagasaki unimaginably horrific though they were ended World war 2 which had cost 55 million lives. If the ultimate aim is ever lasting peace in the Middle East who knows what is proportionate. 

Then my next question would be do you think Israel's recent actions are ultimately going to save lives or extend and intensify the conflict? 

I know Hamas actions on October 7th certainly extended and intensified the conflict. I don't want you to think I'm suggesting Israel shouldn't react at all. 

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

I was merely highlighting was Israeli's thought of the war nothing more. I find both sides (there is overwhelming support in Gaza for the October 7th attacks as well) responses depressing in the search for peace. 

There is little point trying to quantify Gazan opinion of the Oct 7th attacks, after the IDF bombardment began. Views will understandably be clouded by anger and hatred towards Israel right now, that much is obvious. The relentless bombing by Israel has hardened Palestinian opinions, even retrospectively, which is depressingly, exactly what Hamas would have wanted. So if the 'overwhelming support' you are referring to is support since the IDF bombs started falling, then that's a rather empty observation that should surprise nobody. 

What Gazans opinions were before October is what is interesting.  Polls conducted in July by the Washington Institute (admittedly a pro-Israel American 'think-tank') found that 62% of Gazans supported Hamas maintaining it's ceasefire with Israel. It also found that 50% of Gazans supported a 2-state-solution based on the 1967 borders and the polling revealed that Fatah had considerably more support in Gaza than Hamas (+12%).  

I honestly don't know how reliable the Institute's polling is but the point remains, they were at least conducted before all the recent horror occurred.  Trying to gauge public opinion right now is a pointless endeavour.  

Just seen from your recent post that those polls were taken after much of Gaza had been turned to rubble by IDF bombs and more than 10,000 Gazas killed, including thousands of children, as well as multiples of those figures injured.  Garbage reporting that, what on Earth were they expecting to find? 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Highgate

[ramit]

10 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

I actually think that Israel’s attacks are less reckless than say the Allies on Dresden. But it’s different times now we have computers to help teach targets. 
I don’t regard either as murder but probably Dresden was a reckless error by Churchill. 

in answer to another question what is proportionate can only be decided in context of the end game. Hiroshima and Nagasaki unimaginably horrific though they were ended World war 2 which had cost 55 million lives. If the ultimate aim is ever lasting peace in the Middle East who knows what is proportionate. 

My opinion

War is all bloody murder, there can be no denying that.  There is no good war.  You may find it offensive, but a soldier in WWII, Korea or Vietnam who fires his weapon to snuff out the life of another human being is a murderer.  There is a reason why so many veterans who have been in the *hit don't want to talk about it, they know what war made of them and feel shame for it.  Suicides are common with veterans, war messes up a person because it is unnatural, it delivers a lasting trauma to any decent person drawn into it.  The same goes for both sides of this war, it is all dehumanizing bloody murder, with the killers who survive never able to recover from the horrors they saw and acted in.

Justifying mass killings on the grounds of some ends won't fly either, it is what it is, a crime from start to finish.

[Leeds Ram]

7 hours ago, Highgate said:

There is little point trying to quantify Gazan opinion of the Oct 7th attacks, after the IDF bombardment began. Views will understandably be clouded by anger and hatred towards Israel right now, that much is obvious. The relentless bombing by Israel has hardened Palestinian opinions, even retrospectively, which is depressingly, exactly what Hamas would have wanted. So if the 'overwhelming support' you are referring to is support since the IDF bombs started falling, then that's a rather empty observation that should surprise nobody. 

What Gazans opinions were before October is what is interesting.  Polls conducted in July by the Washington Institute (admittedly a pro-Israel American 'think-tank') found that 62% of Gazans supported Hamas maintaining it's ceasefire with Israel. It also found that 50% of Gazans supported a 2-state-solution based on the 1967 borders and the polling revealed that Fatah had considerably more support in Gaza than Hamas (+12%).  

I honestly don't know how reliable the Institute's polling is but the point remains, they were at least conducted before all the recent horror occurred.  Trying to gauge public opinion right now is a pointless endeavour.  

Just seen from your recent post that those polls were taken after much of Gaza had been turned to rubble by IDF bombs and more than 10,000 Gazas killed, including thousands of children, as well as multiples of those figures injured.  Garbage reporting that, what on Earth were they expecting to find? 

Usually I'd agree with polling after a major event. However, what I'm concerned about is how the conflict will inevitably shape opinions and the options on the table for solutions. I do fear this could concretise public opinion in Gaza and Israel in a deeper and longer way than the usual quick, short, sharp reaction we see from some events which then recedes not that long after the event. This does have the smell of Hamas in the 1990's who conducted suicide bombing operations in an attempt to derail the peace process which in the end worked. 

[PistoldPete]

8 hours ago, Alpha said:

Then my next question would be do you think Israel's recent actions are ultimately going to save lives or extend and intensify the conflict? 

I know Hamas actions on October 7th certainly extended and intensified the conflict. I don't want you to think I'm suggesting Israel shouldn't react at all. 

I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that. I would like to see some meaningful discussions right now about what the end game is. Calls for a ceasefire are pointless without that. 

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

Usually I'd agree with polling after a major event. However, what I'm concerned about is how the conflict will inevitably shape opinions and the options on the table for solutions. I do fear this could concretise public opinion in Gaza and Israel in a deeper and longer way than the usual quick, short, sharp reaction we see from some events which then recedes not that long after the event. This does have the smell of Hamas in the 1990's who conducted suicide bombing operations in an attempt to derail the peace process which in the end worked. 

I think your fears are well justified in that regard. It seems inevitable now that opinions, on both sides, will polarize and the affect will be long-term.

[PistoldPete]

6 hours ago, ramit said:

My opinion

War is all bloody murder, there can be no denying that.  There is no good war.  You may find it offensive, but a soldier in WWII, Korea or Vietnam who fires his weapon to snuff out the life of another human being is a murderer.  There is a reason why so many veterans who have been in the *hit don't want to talk about it, they know what war made of them and feel shame for it.  Suicides are common with veterans, war messes up a person because it is unnatural, it delivers a lasting trauma to any decent person drawn into it.  The same goes for both sides of this war, it is all dehumanizing bloody murder, with the killers who survive never able to recover from the horrors they saw and acted in.

Justifying mass killings on the grounds of some ends won't fly either, it is what it is, a crime from start to finish.

Well as I say I have relatives who fought in the wars and I know full well they didn’t want to talk about it. The traumas of what they saw and yes what they did stayed with them for the rest of their lives. I know that it preyed on their consciences . War is horrible and nobody wants it.  But calling  our armed forces murderers is really too much. 

[Alph]

40 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that. I would like to see some meaningful discussions right now about what the end game is. Calls for a ceasefire are pointless without that. 

This is the point which it can easily dissolve back into tit for tat because I don't think there is any chance of peace without assurances from Israel. And I know you think that might be my bias but please hear me out and tell me where you disagree. 

You can't ask Hamas or Palestinians to stop fighting. Well, you can. But they will always say that until the Occupier returns what they have taken then they will stand against Israel, no? They will, whether we agree or not, point to the settlements and Gaza. 

This is where I think I'll get grief again because I'm putting the ball in Israel's court. Being the military power, being the occupier or whatever less offensive term is I think they have to offer the Palestinians something. Not Hamas. But work towards a Palestinian State and work with Palestinian Authority. 

All the while they'll come under attack. But I don't see another solution. Fatah and Israel have to be brought to the table and Israel will have to give the Palestinians more than they would like to. And the Palestinians would have to take less than they'd like. 

And then it's vital that whatever provocations, Israel deal with settler violence. They can't control Hamas but they can control that. 

Then, as I've maintained and nobody has put an argument against it, Hamas can't be destroyed by Israel. It's an ideology and will always return in one form of another. Because of angry Palestinians. Because of Iran etc. So the only way to remove Hamas is to get Palestinians to reject them. To reduce Hamas influence over Palestinians until they're such a pathetic force maybe Israel will be able to strike at. And Palestinians will feel less like Hamas is there only guard against illegal and aggressive occupation (that's how they see it)

This has been my view from the start and I've been guilty of going in hard at Israel. But genuinely just trying to get the point that they are the power here and it has to be them that make the first move. I know that's not always been the case. I know Arab nations around them, particularly one, if they were in Israel's position then Gaza would be flat packed. I know nations like America and Iran etc have their own agenda.

I hope this time I haven't come across as ranting. I'm all ears for what other avenues we could go down. I know it will take years to get through a process. I've just never heard much of an alternative. 

It breaks into "well you did this" and "you did that" and "well we offered this before" and "you've never offered anything that you didn't steal" 

[PistoldPete]

52 minutes ago, Alpha said:

This is the point which it can easily dissolve back into tit for tat because I don't think there is any chance of peace without assurances from Israel. And I know you think that might be my bias but please hear me out and tell me where you disagree. 

You can't ask Hamas or Palestinians to stop fighting. Well, you can. But they will always say that until the Occupier returns what they have taken then they will stand against Israel, no? They will, whether we agree or not, point to the settlements and Gaza. 

This is where I think I'll get grief again because I'm putting the ball in Israel's court. Being the military power, being the occupier or whatever less offensive term is I think they have to offer the Palestinians something. Not Hamas. But work towards a Palestinian State and work with Palestinian Authority. 

All the while they'll come under attack. But I don't see another solution. Fatah and Israel have to be brought to the table and Israel will have to give the Palestinians more than they would like to. And the Palestinians would have to take less than they'd like. 

And then it's vital that whatever provocations, Israel deal with settler violence. They can't control Hamas but they can control that. 

Then, as I've maintained and nobody has put an argument against it, Hamas can't be destroyed by Israel. It's an ideology and will always return in one form of another. Because of angry Palestinians. Because of Iran etc. So the only way to remove Hamas is to get Palestinians to reject them. To reduce Hamas influence over Palestinians until they're such a pathetic force maybe Israel will be able to strike at. And Palestinians will feel less like Hamas is there only guard against illegal and aggressive occupation (that's how they see it)

This has been my view from the start and I've been guilty of going in hard at Israel. But genuinely just trying to get the point that they are the power here and it has to be them that make the first move. I know that's not always been the case. I know Arab nations around them, particularly one, if they were in Israel's position then Gaza would be flat packed. I know nations like America and Iran etc have their own agenda.

I hope this time I haven't come across as ranting. I'm all ears for what other avenues we could go down. I know it will take years to get through a process. I've just never heard much of an alternative. 

It breaks into "well you did this" and "you did that" and "well we offered this before" and "you've never offered anything that you didn't steal" 

Well instead of tit for tat scaling up (which incidentally I don’t see Israel’s response as that anyway) we go down a tit for tat scaling down .. the hostage/ prisoner exchange is a good start. The big step is Israel ( without Netanyahu) recognising Palestine and vice versa. The devil I think is in the detail which is why I think previous attempts at a two State solution have failed. 

[Tamworthram]

8 hours ago, ramit said:

My opinion

War is all bloody murder, there can be no denying that.  There is no good war.  You may find it offensive, but a soldier in WWII, Korea or Vietnam who fires his weapon to snuff out the life of another human being is a murderer.  There is a reason why so many veterans who have been in the *hit don't want to talk about it, they know what war made of them and feel shame for it.  Suicides are common with veterans, war messes up a person because it is unnatural, it delivers a lasting trauma to any decent person drawn into it.  The same goes for both sides of this war, it is all dehumanizing bloody murder, with the killers who survive never able to recover from the horrors they saw and acted in.

Justifying mass killings on the grounds of some ends won't fly either, it is what it is, a crime from start to finish.

I agree there is no such thing as a “good war” but I think there is what could be described as a “just cause”. Therefore, I wouldn’t describe every soldier that has ever killed another person as a murderer.

Also, I’m no psychiatrist but I would disagree with your statement that the reason many veterans don’t talk about their experiences and suicides are common is because they feel shame or feel like a murderer. I would imagine that, for any civilised person, the taking of another persons life under any circumstances is pretty traumatic. Even if it was done in pure self defence or to protect a loved one I doubt many would be unmoved by the event. When you add that experience to the general horrors of war, I think it’s not surprising that so many veterans struggle. 

[Alph]

22 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well instead of tit for tat scaling up (which incidentally I don’t see Israel’s response as that anyway) we go down a tit for tat scaling down .. the hostage/ prisoner exchange is a good start. The big step is Israel ( without Netanyahu) recognising Palestine and vice versa. The devil I think is in the detail which is why I think previous attempts at a two State solution have failed. 

You don't see Israel escalating the conflict? This is why I asked what Israel are trying to achieve in Gaza right now because I think it's fair to say Hamas are gaining more support and in the long term at least will come back stronger? That's how this thread became so heated but I hope I can get my tone across here that I'm trying to discuss and I'm not telling you your wrong. I'm trying to understand the logic of Israel. 

I suppose what's done is done anyway and if we are talking about moving forward then from this ceasefire we would need to get Fatah and Israeli government to the table. 

Couple of problems with that are that many Palestinians accuse Abbas and Fatah of being sympathetic to the Occupation, of corruption etc. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. But it's a stumbling block because of the view that this government doesn't have the best interest of Palestinians at heart. So I don't know how they combat that? 

The other obviously is the right wing Zionists in Israel. It's hard to imagine that Netenyahu and Co can be the ones to negotiate. Is that fair to say? It has to be those within Israel that oppose Netenyahu? Too much damage has been done by him and his allies to possibly be the ones to find peace? 

It's really hard to know if my tone is coming across as aggressive. I can only hope it isn't. I'm not the most eloquent poster!! 

[PistoldPete]

23 minutes ago, Alpha said:

You don't see Israel escalating the conflict? This is why I asked what Israel are trying to achieve in Gaza right now because I think it's fair to say Hamas are gaining more support and in the long term at least will come back stronger? That's how this thread became so heated but I hope I can get my tone across here that I'm trying to discuss and I'm not telling you your wrong. I'm trying to understand the logic of Israel. 

I suppose what's done is done anyway and if we are talking about moving forward then from this ceasefire we would need to get Fatah and Israeli government to the table. 

Couple of problems with that are that many Palestinians accuse Abbas and Fatah of being sympathetic to the Occupation, of corruption etc. I'm not saying they're right or wrong. But it's a stumbling block because of the view that this government doesn't have the best interest of Palestinians at heart. So I don't know how they combat that? 

The other obviously is the right wing Zionists in Israel. It's hard to imagine that Netenyahu and Co can be the ones to negotiate. Is that fair to say? It has to be those within Israel that oppose Netenyahu? Too much damage has been done by him and his allies to possibly be the ones to find peace? 

It's really hard to know if my tone is coming across as aggressive. I can only hope it isn't. I'm not the most eloquent poster!! 

I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t see it as a tit for tat retaliation ie you killed x of our civilians so we will kill y of yours as retaliation. The stated aim is to take Hamas out of the equation so that there is no recurrence. Whether that will work as I say I don’t know, but that’s the objective as I see it and how Israel has stated it. 

[ramit]

14 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Well as I say I have relatives who fought in the wars and I know full well they didn’t want to talk about it. The traumas of what they saw and yes what they did stayed with them for the rest of their lives. I know that it preyed on their consciences . War is horrible and nobody wants it.  But calling  our armed forces murderers is really too much. 

If you take a life, what are you?  Alright, killers then.  I am not judging by using those words, it is what it is.  Killing in the name of some power that be is not less of a killing.  I understand men were conscripted, forced to bear arms and I find that criminal, the state acting as if human beings are their property and leaving them with scars that won't heal and a conscious that accuses.

[PistoldPete]

18 hours ago, ramit said:

If you take a life, what are you?  Alright, killers then.  I am not judging by using those words, it is what it is.  Killing in the name of some power that be is not less of a killing.  I understand men were conscripted, forced to bear arms and I find that criminal, the state acting as if human beings are their property and leaving them with scars that won't heal and a conscious that accuses.

Nazi Germans were killers, murderers, genocidal all of those things. They killed millions of Jews, gays, disabled people and anyone else who got in their way. Appeasement with Hitler was no use, only when Hitler was defeated could a process of appeasement and reconciliation begin. That process has led to peace in Western Europe for the last 80 years and probably forever. Before that West European countries had been warring for centuries. Quite a change and none of that would have been possible if Hitler hadn’t been defeated. 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Nazi Germans were killers, murderers, genocidal all of those things.

Every single person killed in the Dresden bombings was? Every single one of them was a genocidal murderer? None of them were innocent pacifists, or children?

It's an interesting philosophical debate to have I agree. Where does murdering innocent people in the name of "war" become justified if it stops further murders by the other side. Similar to the Trolley Car dilemma, except it's real and not theoretical and people do actually die

[PistoldPete]

41 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Every single person killed in the Dresden bombings was? Every single one of them was a genocidal murderer? None of them were innocent pacifists, or children?

It's an interesting philosophical debate to have I agree. Where does murdering innocent people in the name of "war" become justified if it stops further murders by the other side. Similar to the Trolley Car dilemma, except it's real and not theoretical and people do actually die

I referred to Nazi Germans specifically to acknowledge the fact that we were at war with the Nazis, not with the Germans as a people. The horrors of the war are that innocent civilians ( French as well as Germans) were killed in large numbers.