What's so funny about peace, love and understanding? In all fairness, I would have wanted to kill someone, too. If my loved one was kidnapped from a peaceful festival or murdered. I would want blood. But that is why I wouldn't be in charge of a country.
I’m going to assume you’re asking these in good faith and do my best to provide heavily summarised responses. It was extremely unsafe when the deadliest proportionate terrorist attack of our generation took place on 7/10. It’s been unsafe since that day due to daily rocket fire from Hamas and Hezbollah and is still surrounded by countries that want to see it destroyed. It is slightly safer given the destruction of tunnels in Gaza, the reduction of Hamas as a fighting force and the Arab world being far more vocal on Hamas (Saudi and the emirate states in particular). A confrontation with Iran has been inevitable since 7/10. Iran exists to destroy Israel, so something has to give. is it safer now? No. Would it have been safer through diplomacy alone? Probably not, because how would that have looked?
Perhaps two terms you have missed off your list, "New Labour, " still used by Peter Mandleson when looking back on the Blair years and "A one-nation" conservative - a term that Johnson used to describe his stance. As we discovered with the latter, it was a label he applied to himself thinking it would make him look better without any kind of real conviction. being applied.
SaintJoey, I apologise. I didn't see your response as it was hidden. Here it is copied over. I will respond. 1. Explain why this military offensive was a wise move. What has it gained that diplomacy could not? Diplomacy without military firepower would have done nothing. How do you think a negotiation would have gone?! What would Hamas have asked for? What would weakness have shown to Iran? Nobody questions Israel has military power. They have reacted with military might every time anything happens. And things keep happening. Iran is weak. Really weak. It made itself look stupid with its single rocket attack on Israel. Sometimes military efforts just make you look stupid. 2. If it was your child's school that Hamas harboured weapons in, would you feel the same about the validity of the bombings? i’d be absolutely disgusted by Hamas doing that. If I was pro Palestinian, I would be marching every week for Hamas to surrender and to stop the vile act of using human shields and civilian infrastructure, something than even ISIS didn’t do. The innocent loss of life is revolting and tragic. No words really. There has never been a war carried out against a group who hide behind civilians so blatantly. What message would it send if you don’t attack because of this strategy? It would empower terrorists worldwide to fight from behind civilians. A dangerous and scary proposition. Sorry, but this answer absolutely ignores my question. Yes, be mad at the crazy extremists. I get it. But your own government just slaughtered some kids to get them. How do you feel about that? How do you feel if that was your kid your government killed? There was an Israeli diplomat asked this question. Would you still do this if these were Israeli children? He replied: But they aren't Israeli. Doesn't that tell us things are a mess? 3. If a war achieves the goals your enemy wants it to, is it a success? I think the war has been a real failure. Hamas are not destroyed and I don’t think they can be by military alone. I think Israel should have stuck to taking out the top level operatives. They’ve eliminated 3 of the top 5 and probably could have done that with significantly less civilian life lost. The only plus point strategically is that they’ve taken the corridor which Hamas relies on to smuggle goods in from Egypt. I’m not sure how that translates into a long term gain but it will suffocate Hamas eventually I don't think you can suffocate Hamas ever. Hamas is not a thing but an idea. It is the idea of the alien nature of Israel. Hamas has achieved what they wanted and grown that sentiment globally. But yes, we are agreed, it has not been a successful war. 4. Why is Israel safer now than it was before all this bloodshed? It was extremely unsafe when the deadliest proportionate terrorist attack of our generation took place on 7/10. It’s been unsafe since that day due to daily rocket fire from Hamas and Hezbollah and is still surrounded by countries that want to see it destroyed. It is slightly safer given the destruction of tunnels in Gaza, the reduction of Hamas as a fighting force and the Arab world being far more vocal on Hamas (Saudi and the emirate states in particular). A confrontation with Iran has been inevitable since 7/10. Iran exists to destroy Israel, so something has to give. is it safer now? No. Would it have been safer through diplomacy alone? Probably not, because how would that have looked? The question of optics is my whole point. Everyone knew this was going to be a war of violence against civilians. Israel fell for it hook, line and sinker and "how it looks" is how Hamas wanted it to look. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is attacking Israel from Lebanon. So nobody has created an idea you can't mess with Israel. In fact, Israel will have to go fight another war as it hasn't left itself a lot of diplomatic pathways.
I don;t think they are quite the same. Most people don't care if it is crankpot Conservative or one nation Conservative. They will still say "tory" And New Labour, old Labour. don;t think anyone feared attacking them because of the new moniker. I mean terms that are used to describe something that should be a good thing. Hard to argue against that good thing. Who could argue against globalists, Centrists, Moderates, anti-fascists etc. Surely these are all good things.....because their title says they are. The reality of what is going on behind and the real workings of these groups is batted away because you can't argue against anti facism because you can't. They are very often names to hide different agendas and policiy/strategy behind. New Labour was still Labour. People were swayed that they were enough removed from the militant left that they could finally end that Conservative run. And Blair was the uber salesman of pretend labour that caught the zeitgeist. Right man at the right time saying the right things. What followed was an uber con though mostly for the Labour voters because what he said he would do when he got the gig he didn;t do and what he did do he did in a way that fed public money out of the public purse to the people that Thatcher was blamed for creating! But then he did say he was an admirer of Thatcher. We will never recover from that PFI spend. Not in my lifetime. I'm 50 next year so another 30-40-50 hopefully. We will still be in debt, probably even moreso because that model is now the technocratic model of choice!
The trouble is that people are excellent at telling Israel what they shouldn’t have done, but dreadful at telling them what they should have done (that would have been in any way effective).
That doesn't mean they are immune to criticism. It was evident from the moment this happened what Hamas wanted Israel to do. There are ALWAYS options. This is not the Kobayashi Maru!
It doesn’t, no. And much of the criticism is valid. But though you say there’s always options, nobody seems to have come up with any that would have likely achieved any sustainable aims. It’s a mess. That’ll be the Middle East for you.
I am not arguing it isn't complicated. (or nuanced). But the Israeli response was not complicated or nuanced.
No it wasn't. And you're right in that it's what Hamas would have wanted - to goad them like this - though I suspect even they've been surprised by it's relentless ferocity.
It's just sad all round that people's races and religions matter at all in the modern age. It is time humanity grew up.
I stopped reading here and accept your apology. Glad to see we now agree Just kidding but sleep now calls.
It’s naive in the extreme to think everyone will forever live in peaceful harmony. Race and religion will always matter to some. In fact, sadly I believe that we are heading into a world where race & religion matters even more, not less as some would have you believe. For example: There are now large voting blocs that can heavily influence British politics based on issues that don’t even really impact Britain.
I assume this is sarcasm? But yes, absolutely they are. It’s literally already happening. 6% is a large % when they are mostly centralised in small areas like cities. There were literally MPs elected on the sole issue of Gaza and Palestine this year.
That tweet also talks about a 25 year war. In 25 years time the Muslim population could be around 17% which would probably be enough to elect a lot of MPs, although it's hard to know for sure unless you get into how many would be over 18 at that point.
