Do you think Israel's response has been proportional? And do you think it will help towards a long term solution? Or is this just about hitting back in anger? Genuine questions btw
Quite honestly: Israel had the sympathy and empathy of the vast majority of the world as the events of 7th October unfolded - that, irrespective of the continued flouting of International Law regarding occupied territories etc. However, they've lost substantial goodwill since, with missiles hitting, hospitals, churches, schools, refugee camps and civilian convoys that were following Israel's directives- even the Yanks are wobbling now and have sent Blinken spiralling backwards and forwards on a PR damage limitation exercise as world criticism of Israel's tactics grows stronger... For me, it would have been much better to have avoided the targeting mentioned - nstead use the propaganda around Hamas civilian shields positively and productively - it was always going to come down to a ground offensive in terms of the clear out ... Instead, over 7,000 women and kids have become collateral damage - Netanyahu might consider that acceptable - but it isn't ... not only has it turned a lot of public opinion against Israel, it can only serve to create a new generational wave of Palestinians who will be he'll bent on retribution, even if they are just kids now ... it will also be a catalyst for wider arab active resistance ... Just my take, of course...
We’ve never been very good at popularity contests. I sincerely doubt any response from Israel would’ve been deemed acceptable by any potential “Arab resistance” or the bandwagon here.
You haven't explained in any detail whatsoever what Israel should have done differently to accomplish the same objective, other than demanding that there be no collateral damage. Forget 7000 civilian deaths. Don't get drawn in to the media's hollywoodisation of human tragedy. Even 1 civilian death is one too many and I'd be the first to argue that. How is that meant to be avoided?
I don't think it will help towards a long term solution if when the dust settles, both Hamas and Netanyahu are still in power. Both sides need fresh leadership who genuinely believe in advancing the peace process. I've made this point countless times on here. If Israel succeeds in its objective, which is the removal of Hamas, and the Israeli public succeeds in its objective, which is the removal of Netanyahu, there may be a glimmer of hope. I don't think it is just about hitting back in anger. Stalling the ground assault for over a week to allow for hundreds of thousands to move away from the conflict zone (countless of whom were Hamas operatives disguised as civilians - Israel knew this and went ahead with the evacuation anyway) backs this up. But there is without question a great deal of anger. Why wouldn't there be? The atrocities Hamas committed makes anger inevitable. I've seen so many posters on here justify Hamas' actions as part of the context of general Palestinian anger against the occupation and conditions in Gaza etc. That same link has to apply both ways, unless some are prepared to make the argument that Israelis should be above normal human emotion, which seems peculiar. As to your point about proportionality. We see this word bandied around the whole time by the media without ever pausing to consider it's implications. No one in their right mind thinks it means literally an 'eye for an eye' approach, this is positively neanderthal thinking that would suggest Israel would be justified in beheading and raping 1400 people and taking a random selection of 239 Gazans hostage. That would be absurd. So what does it mean? The definition provided by the UN and ICC goes as follows: "The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”. And this is why it is such a cheap and clumsy instrument to bring to bear, and why Fosse won't be able to ever answer my question above. Proportionality has nothing whatsoever to do with size of force, quality of weapons or quantity of engagements. It also has nothing to do with one side suffering more casualties than the other - even exponentially so. These are better discussed under a totally different banner which is asymmetrical warfare. But the media has totally merged the two as if they are one and the same. Once it is accepted that the stated military objective is justified, in this case the removal of Hamas from control of Gaza, the question then is relatively simple in theory: Is Israel's strategy of doing this the most pragmatic in terms of minimising incidental loss of life without compromising or undermining the overall objective? Actions are only considered 'excessive' (and therefore 'disproportionate') if the same objective could have been accomplished as successfully and efficiently by taking on a radically different strategy. Which is why I asked Fosse, and will ask anyone else for the same price, what radically different military strategy should Israel have pursued in delivering its objective? Of course, someone who disagrees with the objective at root (which many on here clearly do, seeing Hamas as heroic and noble freedom fighters rather than terrorists), will by extension inevitably see any military response as disproportionate.
I couldn't have been any clearer ... avoid bombing hospitals, churches, schools, refugee camps and civilian convoys ... and you can't avoid the 7,000 women and children because that's a war crime....
You're getting a bit silly now ... whilst the adage 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" does have some historical resonance ... take the ANC in South Africa for instance... it's not a universal truth ... I've not seen any posters on here condoning or excusing what Hamas did on 7th October... but there cannot be many people who truly belive that the slaughter of 7,000 women and children is a just and proportional response... it clearly isn't ... it's just state based savagery and barbarism flimsily cloaked in political rhetoric and with the aim and objective of ethic cleansing..
How do you avoid doing that while achieving the objective of removing Hamas from power, when Hamas is deeply and intricately embedded in the civilian infrastructure of Gaza? You still haven't provided any form of alternative, only objection. Your second post betrays the true reason you aren't providing any alternative of substance: You don't actually believe Israel's objective is the removal of Hamas. You openly state that it is the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinian Gazans. Which means every single Israeli bullet fired is, by your predetermined belief, as to its aim and objective, disproportionate and unjust. In other words, the alternative you'd propose would have been for Israel to produce no response whatsoever for what happened on Oct 7th. I'd prefer if you just openly admitted that instead of us dancing in circles.
Sorry Treble just getting to this. My apologies if you feel I was ignoring you, it absolutely wasn't intentional or deliberate. I think I've covered these points pretty thoroughly in my discussion with Pinkie the other day. I've read your post above quite a few times and it certainly has my sympathy and complete agreement in theory, but it doesn't contain a shred of what needs to happen in practice in order for things to move forward. And I know we see things from polar opposite viewpoints but have always engaged in a respectful dialogue, but I just don't think you are grasping the reality of political philosophy and the basic workings of a democracy. The absolute, unavoidable salient point hasn't yet been answered: How do we convince enough Israelis that the peace process can be revived? Unless I'm missing something, nothing you or Pinkie have argued over the past week has shed any light on this question. I don't want a world where Netanyahu is voted out of power because he gave expensive champagne to people he wanted favours from, bribed a major newspaper or pushed for judicial reforms. I want a world where Netanyahu is voted out of power because the Israeli public dreams again of real, lasting peace. That dream cannot be imposed by international law, media pundits or UN resolutions. It has to grow organically. Unironically one of the absolute core reasons Oslo happened was that the first Accord established mutual recognition of authority and Israel as a sovereign state. Then the second Accord guaranteed Israel's security concerns via the subdivision of West Bank governance. What did Israel gain from Oslo? **** all, apart from security and recognition. Keeping Hamas in power provides it neither. So, either Hamas changes that by disarming and recognising Israel. Or Israel changes the lay of the land by removing Hamas altogether.
Whilst coveniently clearing the people out and flatening the builings ready for a new settlement. Wgere is the next buffer zone/border going to be ?
7,000 women and Chuldren are not Hamas fighters... and no amount of prevarication can make them so ... if 7,000 Isreali women and kids had been killed by Palestinians your tune would be very different... You can't 'remove Hamas' ... it's an ideology ... you can kill it's armed fighters and that's happening ... but for every Hamas fighter killed Israel is killing 3 or 4 times that number of civilians ... yes that is a disproportionate use of bullets statistically ... quite obviously... I haven't once said Israel should not have 'responded' ... what I have said, more than once, is that Israel should not have targered hospitals, schools, churches, refugee camps and civilian convoys ... you seem to be saying that without targeting those institutions and structures, Israel would not have been able to retaliate? ... and yet Isreal has now also destroyed 50% of all human habitable dwellings in Gaza too ... so that's patently not the case ... but that's not part of an attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza is it... 2 or 3 million people can always live in tunnels once the bombing stops ...
You keep mentioning the women and children killed and ignoring the men, i think over 10,000 civilians in total have now been murdered. I am still waiting for Israel to publish figures for the number of Hamas fighters killed since these are supposed to be the people they are targetting.
Israel hasn't been targeting hospitals or else they wouldn't be standing . You need to get over this targeting **** as this isn't a video game and when explosions are nearby there will likely be some damage to nearby buildings .
9th Oct your first comments and only two days after the massacre by Hamas in Israel, you accused Israel of an illegal occupation, then when I gave you the definition of terrorism towards Hamas, you as much in so many words accused Israel of terrorism, you never once showed sympathy or empathy in your first comments and to that you never once said Israel should not have responded is disingenous as noted by the below response on the 9th... It was plain as day you were anti Israel even in the knowledge of the massacre Hamas had acted out no less than 48 hours earlier.
You've ignored my point about not being dragged into a media driven numbers game. 7000 innocent deaths or 1, there is no difference. Both should be avoided and both are tragic. My 'tune' would be exactly the same. You've ignored my point about the real definition of proportionality as laid down by the ICC. It has nothing to do with what you think it is. You claim that Israel can get rid of Hamas without collateral damage to hospitals, schools and mosques etc. This is factually impossible. Hamas' command centre is in tunnels literally underneath a hospital and there are dozens of verified videos of Hamas firing rockets from school playgrounds and mosque compounds etc. You regurgitate an unverified claim that 50% of all habitable dwellings have been destroyed. You use this unverified claim to buttress your predetermined conclusion which is that Israel's real aim is to ethnically cleanse Gaza and seeks the transfer of 2 million people to live in underground tunnels. This is just farcical stuff. And then you wrap it all up by claiming Hamas can't be gotten rid of anyway as it is an ideology. Or, in other words, Israel shouldn't have bothered retaliating at all, which is the point I'd still love you to just say openly so we can get it out the way. There is nothing, I repeat: nothing Israel could have done that wouldn't have brought the strongest criticism from you and others on this thread.
How many of them need to be Hamas "fighters" (call them terrorists FFS that's what they are) in order to justify the balance in civilian casualties? Answer that question, and you've arrived at the actual definition of proportionality as drafted by the UN and the ICC, not the bollocks definition spread by mainstream media and swallowed hook line and sinker by the esteemed members of this board.
I am not talking proportionality, i am talking effectiveness. Are they killing many terrorists or creating more? Do you not think that is important to know or doesn't it matter as long as the kill rate is higher.
The problem is Twitter is full of tons of misinformation, there is so many claims I could make on here if I swallowed up even 5% of the lies, there are literally hundreds, possibly thousands of accounts with their own agendas, that then spreads to other media sources. Hamas are as good as anyone else at spreading misinformation, I'd say they've got it off to a fine art. I still remember on the media news channels, seeing some guy running around with a child after the supposed hospital attack, shouting Israel did this, Israel did this lol. This is the games of 21st Century warfare, spread as much misinformation as you can, far and wide, and it's guaranteed to trigger people. Usually the UK media is classed as right wing bias, that's until the BBC show something condemning Israel lol, then they are speaking the truth. I've often been reminded on here about judging something from thousands of miles away, but I don't see Fosse or others getting pulled up on it, they suck in every word, and every action with their closed mind, that Israel did it, because the narratives fit their views. In fact Fosse's even keeping a rolling total like it's some game of bingo. Yet, I've never seen this outrage at other atrocities, very selective in deed. I often wondered and even asked why do people hate Jews, I've never understood it, and I find it quite frightening how quick people were to blame Israel after Israeli's were massacred, shocking but true.
You are quite correct - but I have no information on how many of the 2,500 or so men killed were Hamas militia so have avoided speculating ... but for certain the 7,000 were not ... and therefore not legitimate targets in a war ... and should be investigated as war crimes by the International Community once the dust has settled... I note that Erdoğan of Turkey has been responding strongly to Blinken's latest visit saying that there needs to be a Sovereign Palestine that includes Gaza after this war is over and that Turkey is not prepared to see an eradication of Palestinians ... Jordan has recalled it's diplomats from Tel Aviv ... The pressure on Israel (and the US) is growing...
