Israel invaded

[NRS]

andymadmak said:

z4RRSchris said:

Thats exactly what should happen, but wont, as israel will prevent it.

Certainly with Netanyahu in position it's impossible (unless the US really leans on him, and even then.....)
But, I think Israelis would embrace a path to peace if shown one. Yes, there are the noisy extremists, but they don't speak for the majority.
The problem is who can speak for the Palestinians. Hamas is part of the problem even more so than Netanyahu! Fix that, and I don't think an Israel led by a more moderate PM would be a barrier to peace.

This is just as naive as those who say Hamas don’t speak for Palestinians, perhaps even more so. The polls show the majority support a Netanyahu copy, they want the more extremists in power when you look at the way people do/will vote. The reason Netanyahu will be kicked out is he broke his ‘promise’ to keep Israelis safe, it is that failure that is the issue to them, not his policies.

[andymadmak]

JJJ. said:

New peace offer from the U.S.



“Hamas has before it a proposal that is extraordinarily, extraordinarily generous, on the part of Israel. And in this moment, the only thing standing between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire is Hamas," he said.” (Blinken)

And your point is? The BBC say it’s from Israel. Maybe it is a direct result of US pressure, but who cares so long as it results in peace?

[andymadmak]

NRS said:

andymadmak said:

z4RRSchris said:

Thats exactly what should happen, but wont, as israel will prevent it.

Certainly with Netanyahu in position it's impossible (unless the US really leans on him, and even then.....)
But, I think Israelis would embrace a path to peace if shown one. Yes, there are the noisy extremists, but they don't speak for the majority.
The problem is who can speak for the Palestinians. Hamas is part of the problem even more so than Netanyahu! Fix that, and I don't think an Israel led by a more moderate PM would be a barrier to peace.

This is just as naive as those who say Hamas don’t speak for Palestinians, perhaps even more so. The polls show the majority support a Netanyahu copy, they want the more extremists in power when you look at the way people do/will vote. The reason Netanyahu will be kicked out is he broke his ‘promise’ to keep Israelis safe, it is that failure that is the issue to them, not his policies.

I do understand your point, and I agree a little. But my take from the Israelis I speak to ( admittedly not a very large sample) is that most Israelis just want peace and security. If it can be credibly argued that such peace can be delivered by a softer approach then I think the majority would prefer it. The trouble is, as long as Hamas is in charge few will trust that the attacks won’t occur again in the future, and in that trust vacuum the hard men flourish.

[YankeePorker]

williamp said:

An opinion piece, but from someone who knows their stuff:

https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-st...

Its not "genocide". Not even close

Haha, this guy seems to have been a shill from the outset of this war. And all that guff about a new standard of urban warfare, completely avoiding the subject of the missile and bomb based levelling of Gaza. And of course he estimates that almost half of the dead Palestinians were Hamas fighters so it’s only about 20k dead civilians. Oh well, that’s ok then is it?

This whole thing makes me puke, there is no way that this is a justifiable response to what was an appalling terrorist attack.

[NRS]

andymadmak said:

NRS said:

andymadmak said:

z4RRSchris said:

Thats exactly what should happen, but wont, as israel will prevent it.

Certainly with Netanyahu in position it's impossible (unless the US really leans on him, and even then.....)
But, I think Israelis would embrace a path to peace if shown one. Yes, there are the noisy extremists, but they don't speak for the majority.
The problem is who can speak for the Palestinians. Hamas is part of the problem even more so than Netanyahu! Fix that, and I don't think an Israel led by a more moderate PM would be a barrier to peace.

This is just as naive as those who say Hamas don’t speak for Palestinians, perhaps even more so. The polls show the majority support a Netanyahu copy, they want the more extremists in power when you look at the way people do/will vote. The reason Netanyahu will be kicked out is he broke his ‘promise’ to keep Israelis safe, it is that failure that is the issue to them, not his policies.

I do understand your point, and I agree a little. But my take from the Israelis I speak to ( admittedly not a very large sample) is that most Israelis just want peace and security. If it can be credibly argued that such peace can be delivered by a softer approach then I think the majority would prefer it. The trouble is, as long as Hamas is in charge few will trust that the attacks won’t occur again in the future, and in that trust vacuum the hard men flourish.

I’d hazard that is probably not a representative sample. It’s also likely very easy to ‘just want peace’ when you’re on the winning side. Probably most of the Germans during WW2 ‘just wanted peace’ once they took France and so on too.

Previous votes have shown there is enough people who want the Israel First type leaders in that it’s also not just a response to Hamas. Their current leadership helped get Hamas into power, it can’t just be that simple unfortunately. Both sides are pretty entrenched in them being right and the other wrong.

[272BHP]

YankeePorker said:

Haha, this guy seems to have been a shill from the outset of this war. And all that guff about a new standard of urban warfare, completely avoiding the subject of the missile and bomb based levelling of Gaza. And of course he estimates that almost half of the dead Palestinians were Hamas fighters so it’s only about 20k dead civilians. Oh well, that’s ok then is it?

This whole thing makes me puke, there is no way that this is a justifiable response to what was an appalling terrorist attack.

The military goal was clear from the start, root out Hamas and kill them wherever they are.

It's a tricky task and there is work still to do.

[Mrr T]

YankeePorker said:

williamp said:

An opinion piece, but from someone who knows their stuff:

https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-st...

Its not "genocide". Not even close

Haha, this guy seems to have been a shill from the outset of this war. And all that guff about a new standard of urban warfare, completely avoiding the subject of the missile and bomb based levelling of Gaza. And of course he estimates that almost half of the dead Palestinians were Hamas fighters so it’s only about 20k dead civilians. Oh well, that’s ok then is it?

This whole thing makes me puke, there is no way that this is a justifiable response to what was an appalling terrorist attack.

I will ask even though I do not expect an answer. So what should Israel have done?

[YankeePorker]

Mrr T said:

I will ask even though I do not expect an answer. So what should Israel have done?

Well as you asked, in my opinion the Israelis should have concentrated on a negotiated release of the hostages and used the international approbation of the Hamas actions to their advantage. An immediate strengthening of their border defences would also have been appropriate.

If a military response was then deemed to be the way forward they would at least have got back their hostages and allowed their intelligence services time to work, allowing a more measured approach.

The current knee jerk military response rapidly became disproportionate, lost them all international goodwill, and seems to be chiefly about Netanyahu’s political survival. Jews the world over will be paying the price of the Israeli actions for years to come.

Jaw jaw jaw, not war war war.

[Mojooo]

IMO from Hamas' point of view......there is no point in giving back the hostage because by Israel's own words, Hamas are dead, giving back the hostages only delays that. I doubt it will make any real difference to the overall destruction Palestine faces.

Hamas' only real play is to drag things out for as long as possible and let the world turn on Israel - that may lead to a better outcome for the Palestinians, even if Hamas are wiped out.

[Unreal]

YankeePorker said:

Well as you asked, in my opinion the Israelis should have concentrated on a negotiated release of the hostages and used the international approbation of the Hamas actions to their advantage. An immediate strengthening of their border defences would also have been appropriate.

If a military response was then deemed to be the way forward they would at least have got back their hostages and allowed their intelligence services time to work, allowing a more measured approach.

The current knee jerk military response rapidly became disproportionate, lost them all international goodwill, and seems to be chiefly about Netanyahu’s political survival. Jews the world over will be paying the price of the Israeli actions for years to come.

Jaw jaw jaw, not war war war.

What price would that be?

[YankeePorker]

Unreal said:

What price would that be?

Are you unaware of the rising tide of antisemitism in the west? This is affecting the lives of naturalised Jewish citizens who have nothing to do with the events in Gaza.

[Unreal]

YankeePorker said:

Unreal said:

What price would that be?

Are you unaware of the rising tide of antisemitism in the west? This is affecting the lives of naturalised Jewish citizens who have nothing to do with the events in Gaza.

It's being rightly stamped on. We perhaps need to make a few more examples of antisemites but there are signs that the authorities are prepared to clamp down. Antisemites have never needed an excuse. Jewish people are accustomed to it.

[YankeePorker]

Unreal said:

It's being rightly stamped on. We perhaps need to make a few more examples of antisemites but there are signs that the authorities are prepared to clamp down. Antisemites have never needed an excuse. Jewish people are accustomed to it.

Ahhh, so it’s business as usual! I suppose that we can say the same about the Palestinians too, and just ignore the whole sorry mess. Rightio, glad that you cleared that up.

[Mrr T]

YankeePorker said:

Mrr T said:

I will ask even though I do not expect an answer. So what should Israel have done?

Well as you asked, in my opinion the Israelis should have concentrated on a negotiated release of the hostages and used the international approbation of the Hamas actions to their advantage. An immediate strengthening of their border defences would also have been appropriate.

If a military response was then deemed to be the way forward they would at least have got back their hostages and allowed their intelligence services time to work, allowing a more measured approach.

The current knee jerk military response rapidly became disproportionate, lost them all international goodwill, and seems to be chiefly about Netanyahu’s political survival. Jews the world over will be paying the price of the Israeli actions for years to come.

Jaw jaw jaw, not war war war.

So Israel should have said that's ok Hamas you only killed about 1,000. Ok you did a bit of rape and torture and there where a few children but no problems you just carry on.

Sorry your answer is ridiculous.

Jaw, jaw over war, war only works when one side has not just butchered civilians.

[andymadmak]

YankeePorker said:

Mrr T said:

I will ask even though I do not expect an answer. So what should Israel have done?

Well as you asked, in my opinion the Israelis should have concentrated on a negotiated release of the hostages and used the international approbation of the Hamas actions to their advantage. An immediate strengthening of their border defences would also have been appropriate.

If a military response was then deemed to be the way forward they would at least have got back their hostages and allowed their intelligence services time to work, allowing a more measured approach.

The current knee jerk military response rapidly became disproportionate, lost them all international goodwill, and seems to be chiefly about Netanyahu’s political survival. Jews the world over will be paying the price of the Israeli actions for years to come.

Jaw jaw jaw, not war war war.

That's an interesting response that, on the face of it has some merit. However I wonder whether it stands up to closer scrutiny? For example, you seem quite certain that Israel could have successfully negotiated to get its hostages back prior to any military engagement- what evidence do you have
to support that? What terms do you think might have been acceptable to Hamas?
My view, based on how Hamas have typically handled hostages in the past is that there would have been zero chance of a timely return.. in fact, given that Hamas fighters were explicitly instructed to take hostages on the 7th it seems rather more likely that Hamas intended for the hostages to become extension of their human shield in the hope that holding them would indeed prevent an all out response from Israel.
In that sense your hypothesis falls down, as does the strategy of Hamas in hoping that the human shield would prevail against Israeli attack - a grave miscalculation.

Israel waited almost 3 weeks before it invaded Gaza after the attack of the 7th - that doesn't seem particularly knee-jerky in my view. And again, we have the mention of proportionality in relation to a war, but as of yet no one has been able to define what they think that represents! (aside from something, something, something, less than what has happened, something, something). If proportionality were truly a thing, at what point should Hamas say " our people have suffered enough, we should offer to return all the hostages immediately (and the bodies of the dead hostages) in exchange
for a ceasefire? The answer is that its never been done because Hamas sees retaining some hostages as some sort of bargaining chip, even though it knows full well that a full ceasefire will not happen until it makes that commitment. Knowing that more will die as a result does not seem to deter Hamas, so what use is proportionality aside from giving western liberals a hook to hank their protest coat on without appearing overtly anti semitic?

Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 1st May 09:17

[911hope]

andymadmak said:

That's an interesting response that, on the face of it has some merit. However I wonder whether it stands up to closer scrutiny? For example, you seem quite certain that Israel could have successfully negotiated to get its hostages back prior to any military engagement- what evidence do you have
to support that? What terms do you think might have been acceptable to Hamas?
My view, based on how Hamas have typically handled hostages in the past is that there would have been zero chance of a timely return.. in fact, given that Hamas fighters were explicitly instructed to take hostages on the 7th it seems rather more likely that Hamas intended for the hostages to become extension of their human shield in the hope that holding them would indeed prevent an all out response from Israel.
In that sense your hypothesis falls down, as does the strategy of Hamas in hoping that the human shield would prevail against Israeli attack - a grave miscalculation.

Israel waited almost 3 weeks before it invaded Gaza after the attack of the 7th - that doesn't seem particularly knee-jerky in my view. And again, we have the mention of proportionality in relation to a war, but as of yet no one has been able to define what they think that represents! (aside from something, something, something, less than what has happened, something, something). If proportionality were truly a thing, at what point should Hamas say " our people have suffered enough, we should offer to return all the hostages immediately (and the bodies of the dead hostages) in exchange
for a ceasefire? The answer is that its never been done because Hamas sees retaining some hostages as some sort of bargaining chip, even though it knows full well that a full ceasefire will not happen until it makes that commitment. Knowing that more will die as a result does not seem to deter Hamas, so what use is proportionality aside from giving western liberals a hook to hank their protest coat on without appearing overtly anti semitic?

Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 1st May 09:17

Here are some proportions to consider.

Proportion of Gazan people killed which were not Hamas fighters.. at least 70%

Proportion of Gazan people being displayed and starved. At least 98%

Ratio of killed Gazan people to the victims of 7/10 is at least 28

[911hope]

How does Israel's ceasefire offer coexist with promise to assault Rafa?

[andymadmak]

911hope said:

Here are some proportions to consider.

Proportion of Gazan people killed which were not Hamas fighters.. at least 70%

Proportion of Gazan people being displayed and starved. At least 98%

Ratio of killed Gazan people to the victims of 7/10 is at least 28

Question dodged again.

[andymadmak]

911hope said:

How does Israel's ceasefire offer coexist with promise to assault Rafa?

It doesn't and Netanyahu is a dangerous arse imho. He also seems at odds with his Foreign Minister on this point.
Rafah may well hold the last major elements of the Hamas fighting force, but an attack is not the way. It's clear that Netanyahu believes that his desire for a total victory over Hamas is within reach, but I agree with Biden that invading Rafah would be a red line crossed.
Perhaps if the Hamas fighters surrendered or were somehow granted passage to another Arab state so that Israel could be sure they no longer represented a threat? I suppose neither scenario is likely.

[911hope]

andymadmak said:

911hope said:

Here are some proportions to consider.

Proportion of Gazan people killed which were not Hamas fighters.. at least 70%

Proportion of Gazan people being displayed and starved. At least 98%

Ratio of killed Gazan people to the victims of 7/10 is at least 28

Question dodged again.

Inconvenient truths are problematic are they not?