Israel invaded
Discussion
XCP said:
What do you think the allies could have done, practically, between 1942 and 1945 to prevent the death camps? Apart from defeat Germany, which they did.
Are you implying that the West could not have done anything? Because your question doesn't make any sense unless that is what you're implying.
Again, I think you need to do a little more thinking, or at least reading if thinking isn't your strongpoint.
Just off the top of my head, they could have bombed the railways leading to the death camps.
They could have dropped weapons directly into the camps, just as they did with the French Resistance.
They could have bombed the camps directly, accepting that they would kill prisoners, but stop even higher numbers of victims from being killed.
They could have made it clear that any officials involved in the transfer of Jewish people from their countries (particularly France and Hungary in the latter stages of the war) would be held responsible for their deaths and face the death penalty.
youngsyr said:
XCP said:
One tries to understand the Israeli attitude in the light of what happened to Jews 80 years ago. But this is ridiculous.
You should really try a little harder.80 years ago a government vowed to wipe out their people and nearly succeeded. 6,000,000 of their women, children and men were murdered in the most horrific manors possible. The Jewish people were powerless to stop them.
The West knew exactly what was going on in the death camps and concentration camps 3 years before the end of the war, but did nothing to stop it.
The Israelis have then had to defend themselves agains Arab nations, who often team up against them and are intent on wiping them out for the past 75 years.
Seems like they've had enough of half measures and compromises and are putting their foot down to ensure that the most commitedly genocidal of their neighbours never attacks them again and if that means 30,000 of their civilians, who let the genocidal death cult members use their hospitals and schools as military bases, have to die, so be it.
Does that make it any clearer?
JJJ. said:
youngsyr said:
XCP said:
One tries to understand the Israeli attitude in the light of what happened to Jews 80 years ago. But this is ridiculous.
You should really try a little harder.80 years ago a government vowed to wipe out their people and nearly succeeded. 6,000,000 of their women, children and men were murdered in the most horrific manors possible. The Jewish people were powerless to stop them.
The West knew exactly what was going on in the death camps and concentration camps 3 years before the end of the war, but did nothing to stop it.
The Israelis have then had to defend themselves agains Arab nations, who often team up against them and are intent on wiping them out for the past 75 years.
Seems like they've had enough of half measures and compromises and are putting their foot down to ensure that the most commitedly genocidal of their neighbours never attacks them again and if that means 30,000 of their civilians, who let the genocidal death cult members use their hospitals and schools as military bases, have to die, so be it.
Does that make it any clearer?
julian987R said:
JJJ. said:
Wow. That's all I've got say because it's plainly obvious there's absolutely no point having any type of discussion with you on the mass murder that's occurring. Hope I've made myself clear..
ummm, hello, there is a war going on you do realise?Edited by JJJ. on Wednesday 27th March 10:30
youngsyr said:
and if that means 30,000 of their civilians, who let the genocidal death cult members use their hospitals and schools as military bases, have to die, so be it.
The reported death toll is as reported by the Hamas controlled health ministry and does not distinguish between combatants and military casualties. In any case it seems to be clear now that Israel will not be allowed to destroy Hamas so the likely future outcome is that Hamas will resume control over a Gaza mostly reduced to rubble, and then will start planning for the next attack to spark off another round of conflict in the future.
The question becomes then what Israel can do to reduce that threat in the future. Perhaps the road across the middle of the strip is an indicator that they will try and maintain some sort of barrier there to inhibit the flow of weapons and construction materials into northern Gaza.
julian987R said:
skwdenyer said:
It isn’t meaningless if the Arab world uses it as a pretext for war.
It isn’t meaningless if a global wave of Palestinian terrorists start to wreak revenge upon Israel and its friends in the name of avenging genocide.
And it isn’t meaningless if our Govts continue to provide support arms and aid to Israel.
This conflict has already brought out the worst on all sides. To the extent of calls for the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza (and the unusual acknowledgement of their existence) - see for instance https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-lawmaker-u...
It is hard to overstate the zealous hawkishness of many Israeli politicians - and (if we assume representative democracy is working) amongst a pretty large slice of the Israeli population. In fact, Israeli politics often seem little different to those of other dogmatically religious regimes such as Iran.
Israel and its surroundings seem, sadly, to be condemned to a Balkan future. Just imagine what would have happened had some of the former Yugoslav forces had had access to Israeli’s military might. In fact, how long before Israel’s actions in Gaza are compared to those of, say, the Serbs?
Walking back from the brink is critically important. But I’m not at all sure there’s much hope of that.
'This conflict has already brought out the worst on all sides' and goes on to zero in on Isreal and no mention of Hamas.It isn’t meaningless if a global wave of Palestinian terrorists start to wreak revenge upon Israel and its friends in the name of avenging genocide.
And it isn’t meaningless if our Govts continue to provide support arms and aid to Israel.
This conflict has already brought out the worst on all sides. To the extent of calls for the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza (and the unusual acknowledgement of their existence) - see for instance https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-lawmaker-u...
It is hard to overstate the zealous hawkishness of many Israeli politicians - and (if we assume representative democracy is working) amongst a pretty large slice of the Israeli population. In fact, Israeli politics often seem little different to those of other dogmatically religious regimes such as Iran.
Israel and its surroundings seem, sadly, to be condemned to a Balkan future. Just imagine what would have happened had some of the former Yugoslav forces had had access to Israeli’s military might. In fact, how long before Israel’s actions in Gaza are compared to those of, say, the Serbs?
Walking back from the brink is critically important. But I’m not at all sure there’s much hope of that.
In international relations, a proportionate response is usually the order of the day. Had Israel perpetrated some sort of police action in response to the attack and kidnapping, there would have been no shortage of support.
But they didn't. They launched a hugely disproportionate response, which has resulted in the destruction of vast swathes of Gaza, the displacement of millions, a humanitarian disaster, and the deaths of 10s of 1000s of people (we don't need to be sidetracked by considering the actual number).
How we do - or should - evolve as a civilisation is by learning from what has happened in the past.
I'm very well aware that the UK-supported invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were also hugely disproportionate responses (to real or sometimes entirely fictitious acts). I'm very well aware that many many people died in those conflicts. They were wholly unjustifiable wars of aggression, and did much to diminish the UK's standing in the world.
They also failed to achieve their objectives. There's no question but that the only way to achieve Israel's stated objective is by eradicating Gaza as a Palestinian quasi state. Unlike Hamas, Israel has the military and economic means to achieve such an objective. It is why I compare their actions to those of the Serbs.
Those who wish only to justify their actions, rather than learning from the past, will no doubt point to those actions and use them as support for what is happening right now. And, yes, I know the UK has been just as bad further back in history, too - we are, in fact, a nation with a pretty terrible history of doing precisely what Isreal is attempting to do right now.
But to return to your point, it doesn't matter what Hamas have done in the past. If Israel is, indeed, attempting to systematically destroy Gaza, that is - alone and without need of any further context - something that should and must be opposed on the most basic of human grounds.
However much "an eye for an eye" seems still to inform some Israeli policy, Hamas' past actions don't justify Israel's actions *if* they are as bad as they appear.
There's no doubt the whole situation is tragic. There are generations of people on both sides who've grown up in a state of conflict, whose attitudes and worldview have been formed and hardened by the circumstances of history. Hardliners have taken hold on both sides.
To me, there's little doubt that, had Baruk been able to continue, we wouldn't be here now. Had Netanyahu & co not actively facilitated and encouraged the support of Hamas precisely to provide a bogeyman to oppose in the name of destroying Palestinian unity, we wouldn't be here now. It is easy to claim some sort ot equivalance, but Gaza is a tiny, impoverished strip of land, whist Isreali is an economic and military titan by comparison. Like it or not, it is Isreal that has created much of the context for where we are today; it is Israel that had it within its power to act differently.
Hamas is not a force for good. Neither in my view are Likud or their further-right-wing buddies. How that is resolved is uncertain. But if Israel succeeds in wiping Gaza from the map, I fear it will unleash a tidal wave of global and local unrest that will threaten the security and safety of many of us.
skwdenyer said:
julian987R said:
skwdenyer said:
It isn’t meaningless if the Arab world uses it as a pretext for war.
It isn’t meaningless if a global wave of Palestinian terrorists start to wreak revenge upon Israel and its friends in the name of avenging genocide.
And it isn’t meaningless if our Govts continue to provide support arms and aid to Israel.
This conflict has already brought out the worst on all sides. To the extent of calls for the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza (and the unusual acknowledgement of their existence) - see for instance https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-lawmaker-u...
It is hard to overstate the zealous hawkishness of many Israeli politicians - and (if we assume representative democracy is working) amongst a pretty large slice of the Israeli population. In fact, Israeli politics often seem little different to those of other dogmatically religious regimes such as Iran.
Israel and its surroundings seem, sadly, to be condemned to a Balkan future. Just imagine what would have happened had some of the former Yugoslav forces had had access to Israeli’s military might. In fact, how long before Israel’s actions in Gaza are compared to those of, say, the Serbs?
Walking back from the brink is critically important. But I’m not at all sure there’s much hope of that.
'This conflict has already brought out the worst on all sides' and goes on to zero in on Isreal and no mention of Hamas.It isn’t meaningless if a global wave of Palestinian terrorists start to wreak revenge upon Israel and its friends in the name of avenging genocide.
And it isn’t meaningless if our Govts continue to provide support arms and aid to Israel.
This conflict has already brought out the worst on all sides. To the extent of calls for the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza (and the unusual acknowledgement of their existence) - see for instance https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-lawmaker-u...
It is hard to overstate the zealous hawkishness of many Israeli politicians - and (if we assume representative democracy is working) amongst a pretty large slice of the Israeli population. In fact, Israeli politics often seem little different to those of other dogmatically religious regimes such as Iran.
Israel and its surroundings seem, sadly, to be condemned to a Balkan future. Just imagine what would have happened had some of the former Yugoslav forces had had access to Israeli’s military might. In fact, how long before Israel’s actions in Gaza are compared to those of, say, the Serbs?
Walking back from the brink is critically important. But I’m not at all sure there’s much hope of that.
This thread has become one of semantics.
Yes, Hammas invaded Israel - however, their forces then retreated, in short order, back into Gaza. So, incursion would be more of an apt description.
The fact that to avenge that act, Israel has killed over 30,000 people, many of them non-combatants - would, by any measure, seem like an overreaction. No?
Yes, Hammas invaded Israel - however, their forces then retreated, in short order, back into Gaza. So, incursion would be more of an apt description.
The fact that to avenge that act, Israel has killed over 30,000 people, many of them non-combatants - would, by any measure, seem like an overreaction. No?
skwdenyer said:
In international relations, a proportionate response is usually the order of the day. Had Israel perpetrated some sort of police action in response to the attack and kidnapping, there would have been no shortage of support.
"...some sort of police action" - what exactly does that mean?You're going to have to spell it out to me because to me that sounds like you're waiving a magic wand and suddenly the hostages are returned and there's everlasting peace in the Middle East.
dukeboy749r said:
This thread has become one of semantics.
Yes, Hammas invaded Israel - however, their forces then retreated, in short order, back into Gaza. So, incursion would be more of an apt description.
The fact that to avenge that act, Israel has killed over 30,000 people, many of them non-combatants - would, by any measure, seem like an overreaction. No?
Another short memory: it was an invasion. somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 Hamas fighters entered Israel on 7th October and they didn't "retreat", the IDF claims to have killed 1,000, captured another 200 and the ones that hadn't been killed in stand offs stole the hostages back to their hiding places in civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.Yes, Hammas invaded Israel - however, their forces then retreated, in short order, back into Gaza. So, incursion would be more of an apt description.
The fact that to avenge that act, Israel has killed over 30,000 people, many of them non-combatants - would, by any measure, seem like an overreaction. No?
I find it incredible that posters on here will happily label Israel's invasion of Gaza as genocide whilst simultaneously downplaying the massive terror attack by Hamas as "an incursion" followed quickly by a "retreat".
You guys need to have a word with yourselves.
Gaza war: UN rights expert accuses Israel of acts of genocide
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68667...
Damning report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68667...
Damning report.
youngsyr said:
Are you implying that the West could not have done anything?
Because your question doesn't make any sense unless that is what you're implying.
Again, I think you need to do a little more thinking, or at least reading if thinking isn't your strongpoint.
Just off the top of my head, they could have bombed the railways leading to the death camps.
They could have dropped weapons directly into the camps, just as they did with the French Resistance.
They could have bombed the camps directly, accepting that they would kill prisoners, but stop even higher numbers of victims from being killed.
They could have made it clear that any officials involved in the transfer of Jewish people from their countries (particularly France and Hungary in the latter stages of the war) would be held responsible for their deaths and face the death penalty.
None of these points really matter at this stage, but Eden and Churchill certainly made your 4th point clearly, Eden in the Commons in 1942. Who knows what difference it made.Because your question doesn't make any sense unless that is what you're implying.
Again, I think you need to do a little more thinking, or at least reading if thinking isn't your strongpoint.
Just off the top of my head, they could have bombed the railways leading to the death camps.
They could have dropped weapons directly into the camps, just as they did with the French Resistance.
They could have bombed the camps directly, accepting that they would kill prisoners, but stop even higher numbers of victims from being killed.
They could have made it clear that any officials involved in the transfer of Jewish people from their countries (particularly France and Hungary in the latter stages of the war) would be held responsible for their deaths and face the death penalty.
dukeboy749r said:
The fact that to avenge that act, Israel has killed over 30,000 people, many of them non-combatants - would, by any measure, seem like an overreaction. No?
Only if you believe their actions are solely about revenge.They've stated over and over again that their intention is to remove Hamas' ability to attack them, given Hamas use of their own population as human shields, 30,000 deaths out of over 2 million seems surprisingly low.
skwdenyer said:
In international relations, a proportionate response is usually the order of the day. Had Israel perpetrated some sort of police action in response to the attack and kidnapping, there would have been no shortage of support.
The Israelis are dealing with a terrorist organisation that's stated aim is the eradication of the Israelis, they took hostages, they do not conform to any civilised code, they use civilians as human shields, how do you expect them to react ?M1AGM said:
Gaza war: UN rights expert accuses Israel of acts of genocide
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68667...
Damning report.
Nothing new, the UN's defintion of genocide is meaningless:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68667...
Damning report.
Article said:
She mentions in particular three elements which point to possible genocide:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
By that definition if Israel even harmed the mental state of just two Palestinians then that would be genocide.Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Russia would also be guilty of genocide in Ukraine.
So would the IRA.
So would the allies during WW2
So would the allies in Afghanistan.
It's a total nonsense.
PRTVR said:
skwdenyer said:
In international relations, a proportionate response is usually the order of the day. Had Israel perpetrated some sort of police action in response to the attack and kidnapping, there would have been no shortage of support.
The Israelis are dealing with a terrorist organisation that's stated aim is the eradication of the Israelis, they took hostages, they do not conform to any civilised code, they use civilians as human shields, how do you expect them to react ?youngsyr said:
Another short memory: it was an invasion. somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 Hamas fighters entered Israel on 7th October and they didn't "retreat", the IDF claims to have killed 1,000, captured another 200 and the ones that hadn't been killed in stand offs stole the hostages back to their hiding places in civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
I find it incredible that posters on here will happily label Israel's invasion of Gaza as genocide whilst simultaneously downplaying the massive terror attack by Hamas as "an incursion" followed quickly by a "retreat".
You guys need to have a word with yourselves.
Can you give an example (quote) of someone who has downplayed the Hamas attack?I find it incredible that posters on here will happily label Israel's invasion of Gaza as genocide whilst simultaneously downplaying the massive terror attack by Hamas as "an incursion" followed quickly by a "retreat".
You guys need to have a word with yourselves.
I have never seen such a view expressed.
Stand-alone criticism of the IDF response shouldn't be interpreted as such.
911hope said:
youngsyr said:
Another short memory: it was an invasion. somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 Hamas fighters entered Israel on 7th October and they didn't "retreat", the IDF claims to have killed 1,000, captured another 200 and the ones that hadn't been killed in stand offs stole the hostages back to their hiding places in civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
I find it incredible that posters on here will happily label Israel's invasion of Gaza as genocide whilst simultaneously downplaying the massive terror attack by Hamas as "an incursion" followed quickly by a "retreat".
You guys need to have a word with yourselves.
Can you give an example (quote) of someone who has downplayed the Hamas attack?I find it incredible that posters on here will happily label Israel's invasion of Gaza as genocide whilst simultaneously downplaying the massive terror attack by Hamas as "an incursion" followed quickly by a "retreat".
You guys need to have a word with yourselves.
I have never seen such a view expressed.
Stand-alone criticism of the IDF response shouldn't be interpreted as such.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff