Iran - Israel War
Discussion
donkmeister said:
Iran with a secular liberal government? Nah, that could never happ... Oh. Wait.
Iran is a great example of why allowing religion into government is a retrograde step. Turkey and the USA being two more...
Depends on the scale and particular religion. A fundamentalist Quaker government wouldn't be too bad.Iran is a great example of why allowing religion into government is a retrograde step. Turkey and the USA being two more...
Mr Penguin said:
g4ry13 said:
I wonder if they would be calling for calm and de-escalation if another country launched a drone towards the UK. Let alone 300!
Israel seems to be the only country which gets attacked and then told to act with restraint.
You're right, they are the only country told not to defend itself. In this case someone has to do it, Iran have said they want to end it and each side has got a hit against the other. Best to accept a score draw than continue to ramp it up. Israel seems to be the only country which gets attacked and then told to act with restraint.
donkmeister said:
Iran with a secular liberal government? Nah, that could never happ... Oh. Wait.
Iran is a great example of why allowing religion into government is a retrograde step. Turkey and the USA being two more...
Yeah we just need to install an approved person to take charge after enabling a coup in Iran (again). The difference being this time, we might need to ensure that suitably repressive measures taken were sufficient to ensure that the population (no matter how unpopular the ruling government might be) can never be able to mount an effective campaign of civil resistance that can overthrow that western friendly government.....Iran is a great example of why allowing religion into government is a retrograde step. Turkey and the USA being two more...
ukwill said:
skwdenyer said:
g4ry13 said:
Tommo87 said:
Daz68 said:
Christ what a mess. Let's be honest the world is fooked. What a time to be alive or not.
They should’ve have just given the hostages back. (Conspiracy theories about Iran/Russia being behind the whole thing aside).
I'm not sure why that is a conspiracy theory
ks again. ks"?Let's have a look at a few sources:
Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-...
New York Times: https://archive.ph/oh4XI
If you read this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Arab-Jew-Wounded-Spirits-... you'll see Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev (Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s) openly says that he was given a budget by Israel to fund the Palestinian islamists as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the PLO.
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eus-borrell-s...
CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qata...
And so on. There are two questions. Did Israel actively provide money for Hamas or its predecessors? This appears to be a yes. Did Israel actively allow and encourage the flow of money from elsewhere to Hamas? This also appears to be a yes.
As Netanyahu himself is quoted as saying:
Netanyahu said:
those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state
If you can show me evidence proving all of this false then of course I'll read and change my mind!fido said:
skwdenyer said:
If you can show me evidence proving all of this false then of course I'll read and change my mind!
You have to learn to read first - allowing someone to transfer funds is not the same as funding them.As regards the directly funding, much of the money for Hamas arrived in cash, through the borders carefully controlled by Israel (both into Israel from outside, and into Gaza from Israel).
In UK law, it would make no difference whether you funded them or deliberately allowed funds to go to them knowingly; both would be the same offence of aiding terrorists. Attempting to split hairs, rather than accepting that Netanyahu both wanted and arranged for Hamas to be funded is extraordinary. Netanyahu didn't just turn a blind eye to other sources of money, even very recently ( New York Times: https://archive.ph/s9Ye7 ), he actively *encouraged) Qatar to send more and more money to Hamas ( New York Times: https://archive.ph/oh4XI ) - and note all this cash was needed because the Palestinian Authority had sought to weaken Hamas by cutting off funding, leading Netanyahu to look for other ways to keep them propped up.
Netanyahu deliberately aided a group he and others were calling terrorists, whilst at the same time setting out his political stall as being the defender of Israel against those same terrorists.
Since you seem unhappy to accept international sources, have a read of these pieces from Haaretx, the third-largest newspaper in Israel:
Why did Netanyahu want to strengthen Hamas? https://archive.ph/TDtAG
A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance https://archive.ph/pbAq2
There's enormous evidence that, contrary to the advice of almost anyone with any sense (including Israel's own National Security Council), Netanyahu has deliberately and consistently attempted to strengthen Hamas so as to weaken the Palestinian Authority and prevent a move towards a peaceful two-state solution. Right-wingers viewed Hamas as a benefit, a foil to the perceived strength of Abbas.
I urge you to actually *read* all these articles, and then rejoin this discussion. There is nothing accidental about this situation. Netanyahu *wanted* Hamas in power, despite calling them terrorists, despite the rocket attacks, because that kept him in power and kept the disaster (from his PoV) of a two-state solution at bay.
skwdenyer said:
That's why there's at least one example in the above of Israel directly funding the islamists.
As regards the directly funding, much of the money for Hamas arrived in cash, through the borders carefully controlled by Israel (both into Israel from outside, and into Gaza from Israel).
In UK law, it would make no difference whether you funded them or deliberately allowed funds to go to them knowingly; both would be the same offence of aiding terrorists. Attempting to split hairs, rather than accepting that Netanyahu both wanted and arranged for Hamas to be funded is extraordinary. Netanyahu didn't just turn a blind eye to other sources of money, even very recently ( New York Times: https://archive.ph/s9Ye7 ), he actively *encouraged) Qatar to send more and more money to Hamas ( New York Times: https://archive.ph/oh4XI ) - and note all this cash was needed because the Palestinian Authority had sought to weaken Hamas by cutting off funding, leading Netanyahu to look for other ways to keep them propped up.
Netanyahu deliberately aided a group he and others were calling terrorists, whilst at the same time setting out his political stall as being the defender of Israel against those same terrorists.
Since you seem unhappy to accept international sources, have a read of these pieces from Haaretx, the third-largest newspaper in Israel:
Why did Netanyahu want to strengthen Hamas? https://archive.ph/TDtAG
A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance https://archive.ph/pbAq2
There's enormous evidence that, contrary to the advice of almost anyone with any sense (including Israel's own National Security Council), Netanyahu has deliberately and consistently attempted to strengthen Hamas so as to weaken the Palestinian Authority and prevent a move towards a peaceful two-state solution. Right-wingers viewed Hamas as a benefit, a foil to the perceived strength of Abbas.
I urge you to actually *read* all these articles, and then rejoin this discussion. There is nothing accidental about this situation. Netanyahu *wanted* Hamas in power, despite calling them terrorists, despite the rocket attacks, because that kept him in power and kept the disaster (from his PoV) of a two-state solution at bay.
Islamist ≠ Terrorist.As regards the directly funding, much of the money for Hamas arrived in cash, through the borders carefully controlled by Israel (both into Israel from outside, and into Gaza from Israel).
In UK law, it would make no difference whether you funded them or deliberately allowed funds to go to them knowingly; both would be the same offence of aiding terrorists. Attempting to split hairs, rather than accepting that Netanyahu both wanted and arranged for Hamas to be funded is extraordinary. Netanyahu didn't just turn a blind eye to other sources of money, even very recently ( New York Times: https://archive.ph/s9Ye7 ), he actively *encouraged) Qatar to send more and more money to Hamas ( New York Times: https://archive.ph/oh4XI ) - and note all this cash was needed because the Palestinian Authority had sought to weaken Hamas by cutting off funding, leading Netanyahu to look for other ways to keep them propped up.
Netanyahu deliberately aided a group he and others were calling terrorists, whilst at the same time setting out his political stall as being the defender of Israel against those same terrorists.
Since you seem unhappy to accept international sources, have a read of these pieces from Haaretx, the third-largest newspaper in Israel:
Why did Netanyahu want to strengthen Hamas? https://archive.ph/TDtAG
A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance https://archive.ph/pbAq2
There's enormous evidence that, contrary to the advice of almost anyone with any sense (including Israel's own National Security Council), Netanyahu has deliberately and consistently attempted to strengthen Hamas so as to weaken the Palestinian Authority and prevent a move towards a peaceful two-state solution. Right-wingers viewed Hamas as a benefit, a foil to the perceived strength of Abbas.
I urge you to actually *read* all these articles, and then rejoin this discussion. There is nothing accidental about this situation. Netanyahu *wanted* Hamas in power, despite calling them terrorists, despite the rocket attacks, because that kept him in power and kept the disaster (from his PoV) of a two-state solution at bay.
Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt were decidedly Islamists, but they didn't start lobbing missiles at Israel.
My understanding of the situation is that there was a time where Hamas' predecessors looked more interested in improving the quality of life of people than armed conflict, whereas the PLO was in its bombings and plane hijackings phase.
Much like the USA funding Afghan Mujahideen that became the Taliban. A massive foreign policy backfire, but not some ridiculous conspiracy.
Solocle said:
Islamist ? Terrorist.
Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt were decidedly Islamists, but they didn't start lobbing missiles at Israel.
My understanding of the situation is that there was a time where Hamas' predecessors looked more interested in improving the quality of life of people than armed conflict, whereas the PLO was in its bombings and plane hijackings phase.
Much like the USA funding Afghan Mujahideen that became the Taliban. A massive foreign policy backfire, but not some ridiculous conspiracy.
Worth a watch... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightma...Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt were decidedly Islamists, but they didn't start lobbing missiles at Israel.
My understanding of the situation is that there was a time where Hamas' predecessors looked more interested in improving the quality of life of people than armed conflict, whereas the PLO was in its bombings and plane hijackings phase.
Much like the USA funding Afghan Mujahideen that became the Taliban. A massive foreign policy backfire, but not some ridiculous conspiracy.
otolith said:
Car bon said:
Mr Penguin said:
Depends on the scale and particular religion. A fundamentalist Quaker government wouldn't be too bad.
Unless you like cars.... 
Solocle said:
Islamist ? Terrorist.
Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt were decidedly Islamists, but they didn't start lobbing missiles at Israel.
My understanding of the situation is that there was a time where Hamas' predecessors looked more interested in improving the quality of life of people than armed conflict, whereas the PLO was in its bombings and plane hijackings phase.
Much like the USA funding Afghan Mujahideen that became the Taliban. A massive foreign policy backfire, but not some ridiculous conspiracy.
Israel was entirely happy to be enabling if not outright helping Hamas in Gaza to divide Fatah's support in the west bank and to ensure there wouldn't be any unified palestinian demand for their own state. That was in the past 20 years when Hamas took over in Gaza and purged Fatah and long after it was clear that Hamas were unquestionably interested in armed conflict/terrorism while the PLO/Fatah group had long ago (certainly since the 90s) backed away from plane hijackings and the like....Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt were decidedly Islamists, but they didn't start lobbing missiles at Israel.
My understanding of the situation is that there was a time where Hamas' predecessors looked more interested in improving the quality of life of people than armed conflict, whereas the PLO was in its bombings and plane hijackings phase.
Much like the USA funding Afghan Mujahideen that became the Taliban. A massive foreign policy backfire, but not some ridiculous conspiracy.
It would be like if the US had continued aiding the Taliban even after they were known to be opposed to the US just because they didn't like the northern alliance so it was useful to have the 2 at each other's throats.
Edited by isaldiri on Monday 15th April 21:01
isaldiri said:
Solocle said:
Islamist ? Terrorist.
Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt were decidedly Islamists, but they didn't start lobbing missiles at Israel.
My understanding of the situation is that there was a time where Hamas' predecessors looked more interested in improving the quality of life of people than armed conflict, whereas the PLO was in its bombings and plane hijackings phase.
Much like the USA funding Afghan Mujahideen that became the Taliban. A massive foreign policy backfire, but not some ridiculous conspiracy.
Israel was entirely happy to be enabling if not outright helping Hamas in Gaza to divide Fatah's support in the west bank and to ensure there wouldn't be any unified palestinian demand for their own state. That was in the past 20 years when Hamas took over in Gaza and purged Fatah and long after it was clear that Hamas were unquestionably interested in armed conflict/terrorism while the PLO/Fatah group had long ago (certainly since the 90s) backed away from plane hijackings and the like....Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt were decidedly Islamists, but they didn't start lobbing missiles at Israel.
My understanding of the situation is that there was a time where Hamas' predecessors looked more interested in improving the quality of life of people than armed conflict, whereas the PLO was in its bombings and plane hijackings phase.
Much like the USA funding Afghan Mujahideen that became the Taliban. A massive foreign policy backfire, but not some ridiculous conspiracy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeas...
History is full of incidents like this .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_warning_of_Pea...
Edited by fido on Monday 15th April 21:42
Mr Penguin said:
donkmeister said:
Iran with a secular liberal government? Nah, that could never happ... Oh. Wait.
Iran is a great example of why allowing religion into government is a retrograde step. Turkey and the USA being two more...
Depends on the scale and particular religion. A fundamentalist Quaker government wouldn't be too bad.Iran is a great example of why allowing religion into government is a retrograde step. Turkey and the USA being two more...
Not sure why Israel need to continue this, there was no real harm done, there could have been but surely the political capital of going "That the best you got, some moped engined RC planes, they were good fun to shoot down" or,
"To be frank, that was fking pathetic, you have made dicks of yourselves and our stuff is much more boomy, you get a pass this time but next time you are getting fked every day that week and twice at weekends, understood ?"
But, they will likely visit some damage on Iran and then they will be forced to react, and so on.
"To be frank, that was f
king pathetic, you have made dicks of yourselves and our stuff is much more boomy, you get a pass this time but next time you are getting fked every day that week and twice at weekends, understood ?"But, they will likely visit some damage on Iran and then they will be forced to react, and so on.
Mr Penguin said:
donkmeister said:
Iran with a secular liberal government? Nah, that could never happ... Oh. Wait.
Iran is a great example of why allowing religion into government is a retrograde step. Turkey and the USA being two more...
Depends on the scale and particular religion. A fundamentalist Quaker government wouldn't be too bad.Iran is a great example of why allowing religion into government is a retrograde step. Turkey and the USA being two more...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff