Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

Six Palestinians were killed by settlers' bullets in the village of Qusra, south of Nablus, on 13 and 14 October after their homes and property were attacked.”

Sorry for the pedantic quibbling - but six Palestinians were not killed by settler's bullets in Qusra on 13 and 14 October after their homes and property were attacked; four Palestinians were killed by settlers in Qusra on 13 October after their homes and property were attacked, and then on the 14th settlers murdered two more during the funeral of the first four.
 
Also, there is this:

IDF Maj-Gen (ret.) Giora Eiland, a former IDF operations chief and ex-head of the National Security Council, tells Channel 12 he believes Israel is in “an existential war.” As such, the impact on civilians in the enemy state next door may need to be extremely high but would still be considered “proportionate.”

He quotes the former prime minister Ariel Sharon saying, “The Jews have the right to live, too.”

Israel has to decide which is more essential, he says: “To look good in the eyes of the West or to terrify the Middle East environment?”


:mad:
 
Lee Harpin still at the front of hard hitting journalism it appears

hey at least piers won't sue him
ah , Lee Harpin , purveyor of reliable and respected journalism of whom the Press Watchdog had this to say

The findings make clear that the reporting of the Jewish Chronicle and journalist Lee Harpin fall far below the professional and ethical standards expected of journalists working today — particularly as pertains to accuracy and fact-checking (the most basic principles of reporting).


Not the sort of person that I'd be retweeting personally without some form of caveat
 
My position is simply this. Israel are of course justified in responding following the outrages of 07/10. nutralising active terrorists still inside Israel, going after those who committed, sanctioned and directed such attrocities using leathful force. And later, taking steps to ensure future security.

But in the process so far, killing thousands of Palestinian civilians, destroying or at best severely compromising life support infrastructure and services they rely on, enacting collective punishment etc, is not justified. If the Israelly leadership's idea is to solve their security problem by largely depopulating Gaza, with the horror that implies, how does that even work in the medium to long term anyway.

It seems they've decided that going after those who committed, sanctioned and directed such atrocities using lethal force and taking steps to ensure future security isn't possible without eliminating Hamas, and that eliminating Hamas isn't possible without a major assault on Gaza necessarily causing civilian casualties. It's clear now that without such action a Gaza controlled by Hamas will remain a threat to Israel's existence as Iran and others will always seek to empower it to oppose Israel and destabilise the region. In that light the course of action doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It‘s not morally equivalent to the US nuking Afghanistan, but to what the US actually did during their invasion of Afghanistan, which many seemed to be on board with at the time in a moral sense, effectiveness and what came after aside.

As to what the long term plan is and whether this response is wise in that regard, I have no idea. If Israel had behaved a whole lot better to the West Bank in recent years they might have been able to tell a post-war Gaza “look what you can enjoy now we’ve got rid of your Islamist problem” but that ship seems to have sailed.
 
You laughed at my post about Corbyn.

Further down the thread you put video of Corbyns brother Piers.

I agree with TopCat here your doing it to undermine solidarity with Palestinians.
Give publicity to a crank to undermine the cause. A dishonest way of going about things.
 
Does anyone know if this racism against Palestinians is widespread in certain Arab countries, or rather amongst certain classes in those countries, or is this guy just an oddball?

 
It‘s not morally equivalent to the US nuking Afghanistan, but to what the US actually did during their invasion of Afghanistan, which many seemed to be on board with at the time in a moral sense, effectiveness and what came after aside.
"Many"? Is there anyone here who thinks the invasion of Afghanistan was anything other than a war crime in itself from the first moment? It was an illegal invasion, it was amoral, it was disastrous, and it was devastating as is its aftermath.

The Afghanistan parallel is an apt one though for just like the US created the Taliban so Israel created Hamas
 
I do wish the media would stop calling it a ”war”. It’s not a war. Calling it a war plays into the narrative that Israel-Palestine is a symmetrical conflict, containing two matched sides that can meet on a battlefield. What Israel are pursuing is not war, it is genocide.
 
That's a somewhat dishonest claim, because the link you provides says...





But, in the platinum plonker's world, all is fine.

This isn't caused by Israel cutting the water supply, because only 9% of Gaza's water is piped from Israel and that resumed several days ago at full capacity, according to the UN.

What's is causing a problem for water supply in Gaza are shortages of fuel to power the desalinators as most of the water comes from an aquifer. However there's plenty of drinking water to go round, as the UN report I just cited makes clear. Distributing it may be difficult, but that's true in any war zone and doesn't amount to Israel deviously doing some special war crime of water deprivation.
 
Back
Top Bottom