Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[two sheds]

Dunno about lots, but there are certainly some. Some not even trying very hard to conceal it. It's always been a stinky old potato for the left, and a big stumbling block for reasoned debate.

Bit of a stinky old potato for the right, too, which isn't actually famed for reasoned debate. Some on here seem quite happy to see Palestinians to be driven into the sea. Which incidentally that lawyer's arguments would provide ample cover for.

 

[Rob Ray]

"she doesn't address (and isn't asked) where the peopulation are meant to go?"

Or indeed the bombing of supposed safe routes.

 

[Spymaster]

Support for platinumsage from someone who openly expressed justification for the Israeli state's war crimes.

Nah, that's bollocks. I was wrong about how I put that but the same sentiment has been expressed several times on here since, in better terms. The best, by someone who suggested the 'fundamental inevitability' of the Israeli response, or something similar. That's still a long way from where quite a few posters here are with the conflation of Hamas/Palestine/justification/understanding etc ...

 

[brogdale]

Nah, that's bollocks. I was wrong about how I put that but the same sentiment has been expressed several times on here since, in better terms. The best, by someone who suggested the 'fundamental inevitability' of the Israeli response, or something similar. That's still a long way from where quite a few posters here are with the conflation of Hamas/Palestine/justification/understanding etc ...

Clear as day, old chap.

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Hamas is threatening to kill hostages if Israel doesn't stop blowing up Gaza. How did Hamas see this playing out? They’re psychopaths so…

www.urban75.net

 

[Serge Forward]

A good interview here on the subject of Israeli war crimes

"A good interview." Aye right

 

[The39thStep]

Clear as day, old chap.

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Hamas is threatening to kill hostages if Israel doesn't stop blowing up Gaza. How did Hamas see this playing out? They’re psychopaths so…

www.urban75.net

The problem of ‘my house’ analogies part 6

 

[Spymaster]

Clear as day, old chap.

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Hamas is threatening to kill hostages if Israel doesn't stop blowing up Gaza. How did Hamas see this playing out? They’re psychopaths so…

www.urban75.net

You can quote that as much as you like, but the fact remains that it was an heat-of-the-moment response which I've since withdrawn and clarified. There's still shitloads of wrong-headed stuff being posted on here and many left reactions to Israel are absolutely appaling.

 

[two sheds]

'fundamental inevitability' of the Israeli response suggests 'fundamental inevitability' of the Hamas response, which is also bollocks. There was a choice.

 

[brogdale]

The problem of ‘my house’ analogies part 6

Maybe, but for me it's justifying war crimes against an entire (captive) civilian population that is the "problem" here.

 

[brogdale]

You can quote that as much as you like, but the fact remains that it was an heat-of-the-moment response which I've since withdrawn and clarified. There's still shitloads of wrong-headed stuff being posted on here and many left reactions to Israel are absolutely appaling.

Revealing that you think a justification for war crimes can be "clarified".

 

[zahir]

Israeli defeatism.

Enough with the warlords. There is another way

Israel’s addictive militarism has convinced us the next dose of the drug will be the one that fixes things forever. An alternative exists.

www.972mag.com

To those who see these words as an invitation to an Israeli declaration of defeat, I say: so be it. The notion that we can continue to maintain this bloody conflict, with all its inherent oppression, and not pay a price for it — that has certainly been defeated. Your victories have brought us nothing but bereavement and death, for Israelis and Palestinians alike. I have no interest in the victory you’re offering me, because I know that the only way for it to materialize will be in the form of the next graves that we will have to dig.

 

[Spymaster]

Maybe, but for me it's justifying war crimes against an entire (captive) civilian population that is the "problem" here.

Good job that hasn't been left to stand then.

Meanwhile, the justification of the terrorist actions of Hamas, continues unabated.

 

[brogdale]

Whataboutery will offer no cover.

 

[Spymaster]

Revealing that you think a justification for war crimes can be "clarified".

Wow!

 

[The39thStep]

"UK lawyers for Israel". Yeah she's a bit partisan (and it goes a lot further than that, cba to type out her CV). Surprised PS didn't stick up her interview with Rees-Mogg on GB News.

Same group that successfully campaigned to have an art display of plates by some children in a United Nations school in Gaza removed from a hospital in London.

 

[Idris2002]

Israeli defeatism.

Enough with the warlords. There is another way

Israel’s addictive militarism has convinced us the next dose of the drug will be the one that fixes things forever. An alternative exists.

www.972mag.com

Good article. But the people who need to hear it most won't read it. It's already clear that this war means catastrophe for the Palestinians, all that's unknown is how bad it will be. It's also becoming clear that catastrophe may be awaiting Israel as well. . .

 

[elbows]

I'm saying that it's arguable whether they have actually committed war crimes, and that's why western politicians aren't condemning them for it. What you or I think about their actions isn't relevant to that.

Crimes do have to be proven in order to count under the law, but political statements dont have to wait for such judgements.

We've got many decades worth of examples of what leaders of different countries choose to say at particular moments. Everybody knows thats not a pure scene, its based on many factors including the nations own priorities, allies, 'diplomacy' etc.

Its bloody obvious that 'could have broken international law' is considered a perfectly sufficient basis for some nations to issue warnings, threats, appeals, and other grand statements if the perpetrator is considered a foe not a friend, and the circumstances make such statements compatible with our aims rather than awkward.

For example, if the likes of fucking Saddam Hussein had, back when he was still alive and in power but no longer considered an ally, created a situation where the UN human rights office felt the need to issue the following statement, our leaders would have seized upon it, not kept quiet about it just because it was only a 'could':

"We are concerned that this order, combined with the imposition of a complete siege of Gaza, may not be considered as lawful temporary evacuation and would therefore amount to a forcible transfer of civilians in breach of international law,"

From Israel's Gaza evacuation order could breach international law - UN

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

There’s lots of talk about Israeli war crimes, but it seems disputable whether they have committed any or not - it will require close monitoring and an investigation. Hamas however have indisputably committed war crimes. So it’s not really surprising that many politicians are reserving their condemnation of Israeli war crimes at this stage, and instead warning them to be careful not to commit such crimes. A good summary here:

Experts on how the laws of war apply to Hamas and the Israeli military

More than a century of international conventions and treaties are designed to protect civilians from war crimes.

www.nbcnews.com

Collective punishment is illegal under international law. Ditto cutting off fod and water and electricity. Use of white phosphorus weapons is prohibited in urban areas. They've shot and killed unarmed children. Etc.

Disclaimer: Yes, of course, what Hamas did was abhorrent and any criticism I make of Israel in no way absolves Hamas from responsibility for their own war crimes.

 

[elbows]

'forcible transfer' is also a good example we can use to evaluate double-standards because its only been months since the same concept was applied to specific Russian actions in Ukraine.

 

[Rob Ray]

What I find irritating about some of the usual suspects in this thread is the presentation of "the left" doing X, in this case equivocating about whether what Hamas did was justifiable - something they deliberately reduce to binary responses because apparently nuance or being unsure (or even, gasp, emotional) about things isn't acceptable, amounting to the support of baby murder. Then, in almost the same breath, they bollock on as though equivocation is a uniquely left-wing disease while doing that exact thing in the other direction. Downplaying what's said by senior Knesset figures, finding excuses not to believe the IDF has done anything shitty, taking the "aha, loophole" approach to international human rights laws etc etc.

This crap destroys intelligent interrogation of the subject and turns it into football team bullshit.

 

[elbows]

What I find irritating about some of the usual suspects in this thread is the presentation of "the left" doing X, in this case equivocating about whether what Hamas did was justifiable - something they deliberately reduce to binary responses because apparently nuance or being unsure (or even, gasp, emotional) about things isn't acceptable, amounting to the support of baby murder. Then, in almost the same breath, they bollock on as though equivocation is a uniquely left-wing disease while doing that exact thing in the other direction. Downplaying what's said by senior Knesset figures, finding excuses not to believe the IDF has done anything shitty, taking the "aha, loophole" approach to international human rights laws etc etc.

This crap destroys intelligent interrogation of the subject and turns it into football team bullshit.

Chomsky interlude:

I'm asking that we accept the definition of hypocrite given in the Gospels.

The hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others.

I think we should try to rise to the level of minimal moral integrity. Once we can rise to the level of minimal moral integrity, then we can discuss these issues seriously. If we cant even rise to that level there isnt any point us talking. Minimal moral integrity requires that if we think something is wrong when they do it, its wrong when we do it.

 

[Spymaster]

This crap destroys intelligent interrogation of the subject and turns it into football team bullshit.

Uncritical football team bullshit is precisely where a very large chunk of “the left” stand on Palestine/Israel, as amply demonstrated by this thread.

“Nuance” my arse.

 

[platinumsage]

What I find irritating about some of the usual suspects in this thread is the presentation of "the left" doing X, in this case equivocating about whether what Hamas did was justifiable - something they deliberately reduce to binary responses because apparently nuance or being unsure (or even, gasp, emotional) about things isn't acceptable, amounting to the support of baby murder. Then, in almost the same breath, they bollock on as though equivocation is a uniquely left-wing disease while doing that exact thing in the other direction. Downplaying what's said by senior Knesset figures, finding excuses not to believe the IDF has done anything shitty, taking the "aha, loophole" approach to international human rights laws etc etc.

This crap destroys intelligent interrogation of the subject and turns it into football team bullshit.

This entire thread is stuffed full of binary responses to Israel, and nuance about Hamas so I'm not sure what you're on about.

 

[Ax^]

and the right seem to be on the side that an act of terrorism allows the state on the recieving end to commit war crimes as a valid response

 

[Rob Ray]

Like this is the atmosphere being worked with, where even with an outright condemnation of Hamas in the opening line of his comment, the mere fact of calling for war crimes not to be committed is sufficient to force a prominent public figure out of post. And yet not being sufficiently sympathetic to one side is portrayed as a problem of the left! Crazy.

“I unreservedly condemn Hamas’ evil, disgusting and monstrous October 7 attack. I also call for the unconditional release of all hostages,” he wrote. “I unequivocally support Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself … I also believe that, in defending itself, Israel should adhere to international law and the Geneva Conventions — i..e, not commit war crimes.”

CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments

Web Summit’s Paddy Cosgrave steps down amid a backlash from Google, Meta and other major tech companies.

www.politico.eu

 

[Rob Ray]

This entire thread is stuffed full of binary responses to Israel, and nuance about Hamas so I'm not sure what you're on about.

Your reaction to said nuance has repeatedly been to condemn the people offering it as essentially making excuses, don't hide behind them now. And I've no doubt Spymaster is doing no better if his likes are anything to go by.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Uncritical football team bullshit is precisely where a very large chunk of “the left” stand on Palestine/Israel, as amply demonstrated by this thread.

“Nuance” my arse.

It's not about tribalism. At root it's about something quite simple, as a banner carried by Jewish Voice for Labour at the demos put it, 'With the oppressed, never the oppressor'. There isn't a practical or moral equivalence between the two 'sides' here.

 

[krtek a houby]

Have to lol at the right wing reps here, squealing about nuances.

They should just migrate over to the DM and be done with it.

 

[likesfish]

*cough *

The zionist attack on gaza meets most common definitions of terrorism

Well this round of middle east murder games started with a massacre of Israeli civilians. Celebrating their deaths then whining Israel is committing warcrimes is a bit

 

[platinumsage]

It's not about tribalism. At root it's about something quite simple, as a banner carried by Jewish Voice for Labour at the demos put it, 'With the oppressed, never the oppressor'. There isn't a practical or moral equivalence between the two 'sides' here.

Are Hamas the oppressed or the oppressor?