I know you'll hate me for saying this again, but even if that stat is true (which we don't yet know and probably never will), by international law it is well within the bounds of 'acceptable'. Doesn't mean it isn't tragic. They are two separate issues. - 3 civilians per 1 combatant in densely populated urban areas is considered 'good'. - 9 civilians per 1 combatant is considered 'genocide'. - Even by Hamas' own figures, Israel is miles off of actual genocide, which is why the ICC's warrant doesn't mention genocide. We can't embrace international law when it calls for Netanyahu to be arrested and prosecuted, but ignore it when it doesn't suit us.
whatever way people want to spin it, 3 civilian deaths for every 1 combatant is unacceptable, because indiscriminately bombing densely populated areas is unacceptable. The response to that might be, how else are Israel supposed to deal with Hamas when they embed themselves in a civilian population. My answer to that would be to get back to the negotiating table instead of resuming bombing. As for Genocide, I would argue that isn’t the case. Ethnic cleansing however, when there are clear plans to forcibly remove Palestinians from Gaza, with no right of return, develop Gaza into a Riviera and hand it over to Isreal, then yes that’s exactly what ethnic cleansing looks like. As a slight aside, what do you make of ‘Qatar-gate’ and Netanyahu’s attempt to quash the investigations into his administration accepting ‘bungs’ from Qatar, and how much is that linked to him either turning a blind eye to money going to the armed wing of Hamas (he was warned twice) and his history of overseeing Qatari money going into Gaza to support Hamas in an attempt to embolden the terrorist group to weaken the PA and thwart moves for a Palestinian state ?
Going out on a limb here but I doubt she’d be all that keen on the Jewish homeland no matter what situation she finds herself in now.
Most of these noddies out waving flags and demanding people boycott Diet Coke in Waitrose couldn’t give the slightest **** about Palestinians and have had nothing to say about the small number of Palestinians bravely protesting against Hamas. It’s an acceptable outlet they've not had before to be a bit of what they perceive to be anti-establishment and for some to have a good old rage against da jooz. They’ve loved every minute of the last 18 months.
International law describes it as acceptable. If the bombing was indiscriminate, that ratio would be exponentially higher. Ethnic cleansing is a concern and the 'day after' plans need to take this into careful consideration. Netanyahu is just unbearable. He'd sell his own grandmother to remain in power.
I’m at odds with that definition of acceptable. If we live in a world where 74% of deaths are innocent civilians, then it’s a ****ed up world indiscriminate might not wholly represent the IDF approach, but the fact that whole neighbourhoods are wiped out along with generations of the same families, suggests it’s not far off. I’m glad you acknowledge that Netanyahu is at least in part, responsible for Hamas. It’s a discussion that Israel doesn’t seem to want to have for the most part. But in the attempt to thwart the PA, Netanyahu and those who support his utter disdain for the right of Palestinian self determination, he has enabled a monster to grow and morph into what it has become today. The sooner the world is rid both of Netanyahu and Hamas, the better. But the killing of innocent people has to stop now, get back around the table and negotiate another ceasefire, and yes, if Isreal really wants peace (and I think they do, Netanyahu doesn’t) then they have more to lose in this process. But, it is the only way a lasting peace will ever endure.
Spot on and the lazy "... it's the Hamas run Health Ministry.." shouldn't undermine the reality ... Hamas are the governing body in Gaza so of course the ministries are run by Hamas ... but we wouldn't dismiss Ukranian civilian casualties simply because they've been reported by the Ukranian Health Ministry ... ... and as to Solid's point - yes the Israeli 'intelligence' likely reduced the numbers of civilian deaths that might otherwise have occurred in an aerial bombardment on the same scale with no intelligence - but it don't make the civilian deaths at refugee camps (especially ones previously labelled safe zones by the IDF) hospitals and schools any more acceptable... Israel had the tanks, other armed vehicles weaponry and US logistical support to have launched a ground assault that would have crushed Hamas... but the objective was always to make Gaza uninhabitable for Palestinians... let's not kid ourselves...
Well that bit of International Law is acceptable then ... what about the bits of International Law that cover illegal occupations and settlements? ... surely Israel should be complying with those too?
If that's true, bombing her and killing all her friends and family isn't going to change that opinion is it? It's one of those situations where both sides are ****e... but only one really has the power to stop it.
a full scale ground invasion of an urban area is the last thing an advanced military wants to do as it to some extent it negates their advantages and maximises their opponents so why risk it . i also wouldn't be so sure the casualties would be much lower as a traditional response to a unit coming under fire is to call in artillery and or air support on the general area . Basically why would Israel risk the extra casualties
Agreed. I've never said otherwise. My only cause for concern is the fact that numerous towns with populations of 10-30k are technically classified as 'settlements'. So creative solutions are needed and most attempts at a peace treaty recognise this with land swaps.
You're entitled to be at odds with it. But at the end of the day, neither of us knows the first thing about modern combat so if a highly detailed legislation compiled over decades of research and in consultation with countless military and ethics experts, I'm inclined to accept its findings.
I actually agree with this. I obviously think the settlements were horrendous breaches of international law and human decency, but can't overlook the fact that some people were born there, lived their whole lives there, didn't choose to displace anyone and have never been an aggressor or stolen land from anyone. It would be unjust to them to overlook their needs and rights in all this.
There’s not a genocide but no. The point is that one can’t draw much from this random snippet of a random woman ranting but she doesn’t strike me as someone open to the peace and love Kumbaya two-state fantasy and wouldn’t be no matter how much Israel cedes. She doesn’t sound overly well.
Also, Israel tried mass relocation of thousands of its citizens when it unilaterally disengaged from Gaza under the Sharon govt in 2005. That decision worked out splendidly for both sides...
No, and there's probably a lot of people who will have anger and resentment for the rest of their lives. Lots of people wanting revenge on the people that killed their lovers, parents, children, siblings.... Every bomb, every act of aggression just means there's more people that want revenge. There's no solution that will result in everyone being happy and rubbing nipples together as they hug... but stopping the killing of innocents is the first step to eventual rehabilitation. Look at us and Germany, besides maybe brb I don't think there's many left in Britain that want to blow Germany off the map anymore. I think we mostly consider the German's our friends... beach chair stealing friends, but friends nonetheless.
I wish the brave protestors against Hamas all the best in their quest. In the meantime I’ll be putting boycott stickers up on lampposts around Sussex and shouting at people in the Waitrose hummus aisle to do my bit.
