Hamas strike on Israel - Threadbans in op - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Well, I would agree, but it seems all calls for a cease-fire, are appealing to Israeli forces

Absolutely - if it's true.

Unlike Hamas, where posters on here are calling them a resistance organisation, ie defending people who deliberately murdered babies on ethnic grounds.

actually no, they are being bombed because israel is a genocidal terrorist expansionist state who want to ethnically cleanse the gazans so as to take the territory of gaza for itself.

israel wants as much territory it can take and will not stop until it gets what territory it wants.

it is israel's responsibility if civilians are killed as israel generally deliberately target civilians as a matter of policy, regardless of whether hamas is there or not.

hamas is israel's creation so israel has no intention of destroying hamas, not that it can anyway, because hamas being around serves it's interest.

I know nothing about reliefweb, but I do know that the UN has a terrible record of rape of the very women it was supposed to be helping, as well as blocking staff who tried to investigate the fact that the UN was bringing cholera to Haiti, where cholera had never been present before (Haiti had been spared very little in its history, but it hadn't had cholera before that - with the results on a previously unexposed population in poor conditions that one can imagine), and the UN was ignoring the harm it knew it was doing.

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1909&context=hrbrief

Whatever about them after WW2, I'm very dubious about the UN today.

Yes, I think a better case can be made for Dresden to he declared a war crime than the bombing of Gaza by Israel post Oct 7th.

But, the Jews, apparently.

In my original post, as you quoted it, I did say you didn't say that. Then I edited it and that bit got deleted. So I apologise if I misrepresented your position. That was not my intention.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right - WWII bombings were not covered by war crimes legislation because leaflets were dropped, ergo Israeli bombings are the same - ie legitimate?

i also think others here posted that WWII bombings were not war crimes because they predated the legislation?

And this is the Irish republicans view of the Israeli state.

I certainly agree that the terms of any ceasefire should include unequivocal release of hostages and a complete cessation of all hostilities.

A ceasefire (as the UN is debating) would not be one sided. It would have to be agreed by all parties (others than Hamas may be conducting hostilities and firing rockets - I'm not sure). It should also lay down the strict terms on what is considered a breach (by all parties) and the consequences of such breaches.

I certainly was not saying a ceasefire for Israel only. That would not be equitable.

im not an expert on military law but I always thought a ceasefire was an agreement between/amongst warring parties. If it applied to only one party, I think that might be a forced surrender? That is certainly not what my original question was about.

I agree, but what people have been marching for in London and elsewhere is a unilateral ceasefire, ie for Israel to stop. Hamas have already said they will continue more Al Aqsa Flood operations (Oct 7th) until Israel no longer exists.

Fair play is good sport - it was one poster.

They posted a very interesting and detailed article on the roots of Hamas.

whilst I agree with everyone here that the actions of Hamas on Oct 7 were abhorrent and Israel absolutely has the right to defend themselves. But "Hamas", as others have pointed out, is an ideology. Not just a bunch of terrorists.

I recall hearing a phrase years ago - in order to beat your enemy, understand them first.

Perhaps that why the UN cannot currently agree a wording that both Israel and Hamas will sign up to.

I would fully understand why Israel would not support a unilateral ceasefire. And that is their right. As much as I would like to see the bombing stop, I do get their reasoning.

Perhaps this really will only end when Hamas are neutralised to the satisfaction of Israel. If so, I think the numbers of civilian deaths we are seeing today are paltry. An extended campaign of even a few more weeks will see disease and hunger set in - many will die from that.

There will be no winners here - civilians decimated and Israel possible an international pariah for decades and they will still not have the security they crave.

He said the situation is as bad as he's seen, not a mention that Israel are worse than the Khmer Rouge.

Because you have to take it in context.

Israel are not exterminating innocent women and children like the Nazi's did. Israel are neitralizing legitimate terrorist personnel and infrastructure. Hamas will purposely house this infrastructure/personnel within close proximity to innocent civilians which makes Israel the bad guy when they strike these targets.

Makes you wonder doesn't it.. (or at least it should) what Hamas had to gain from October 7th. You look around the world at all the protests and international condemnation of Israel and it begins to make sense. This is a propaganda war to Hamas and the ace in their pocket is the amount of 'civilian' lives lost.

There were no missiles or war planes attacking Gaza on October 6th. No settlements and no stealing of land in Gaza. So why butcher thousands of innocent people? 🤔

Do people not expect Israel to hold Hamas to account for October 7th attacks?

Rejection number one.

The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80% of the disputed territory, the Jews the remaining 20%. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion.

Rejection number two.

Ten years later, in 1947, the British asked the United Nations to find a new solution to the continuing tensions. Like the Peal Commission, the UN decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to divide the land. In November 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer and again, the Arabs rejected it.

Only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict. But they failed. Israel won the war and got on with the business of building a new nation. Most of the land set aside by the UN for an Arab state, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, became occupied territory. Occupied not by Israel, but by Jordan.

Rejection number three.

20 years later, in 1967, the Arabs led this time by Egypt and joined by Syria and Jordan, once again sought to destroy the Jewish state. The 1967 conflict, known as the Six-Day War, ended in a stunning victory for Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the area known as the Gaza Strip, fell into Israel’s hands.

The government split over what to do with this new territory. Half wanted to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in exchange for peace. The other half wanted to give it to the region’s Arabs, who had begun referring to themselves as the Palestinians, in the hope that they would ultimately build their own state there.

Neither initiative got very far.

A few months later, the Arab League met in Sudan and issued its infamous three-NOs, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Again, a two-state solution was dismissed by the Arabs.

Rejection number four.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David, with Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Nasser Arafat, to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the Palestinian leader rejected the offer.

In the words of U.S. President Bill Clinton, “Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything.”

Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more, on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlors.

Rejection number five.

In 2008, Israel tried yet again. Prime Minister Ehud Omar went even further than Ehud Barak had, expanding the peace offer to include additional land to sweeten the deal. Like his predecessor, the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, turned the deal down.

https://africachinapresscentre.org/2023/10/13/5-times-in-the-past-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-state-they-want-israel-out-of-existence/

I totally agree, a complete ceasefire is the absolute optimum.

I really hope it happens. Really. Contrary to posters belief I am not ' pro Israeli ' I just see things from both sides.

Both sides need to come to some agreement on a ceasefire and release of hostages. That's in the short term, to stop more innocents being killed.

In the long term, I don't know how it can be worked out.