Hamas attack on Israel

[Duke of Marmalade]

You and the Duke however take issue with anyone who shows concern for the imprisoned innocent.

Speaking for myself, though I suspect @Purple is not a million miles away, I am totally against indiscriminate revenge against civilians or any violation of international law. I also accept that the Hamas barbaric massacre has a context; though not sure about the 56 years of "suffocating" occupation.
The issue for me is about the pronouncements of our leaders. It is not enough that what they say is correct. Thankfully our leaders stopped short of putting the Hamas butchery in context though I'd say most are like me (see above) and accept that there is a point there. So why did they not go that far? Patrick Cosgrave singled out Ireland for its unique approach to telling the truth on this, and we know what happened him.
Was this a noble position for our leaders or was it finely tailored to the populist sentiment in these parts and an awareness that SF would have no compunction in exploiting that populism?
As for Mickey D, he is just a high school socialist who never grew up.

 

[Ceist Beag]

As for Mickey D, he is just a high school socialist who never grew up.

Hey, no need to have a go at him because of his size...

 

[Purple]

Hey, no need to have a go at him because of his size...

Don't worry, it all goes over his head.

Seriously though, describing him as a high school socialist is quite apt. In as much as nobody would be surprised in Eoin O'Broin still has posters of Che Guevara and Trotsky in his bedroom we can be sure that Mickey D's views on socialism and capitalism haven't matured or developed since he was 15. How could they, he's never been wrong about anything in his life.

 

[Purple]

A few comments.

It is still very unclear what actually happened to cause the explosion at the hospital in Gaza, but the BBC seems to be moving towards it being a misfired Hamas rocket.

I haven’t heard anyone in Israel celebrating the deaths of Palestinian children.

If Israel withdrew from the West Bank Hamas would take over within weeks.

If Hamas laid down their guns there would be peace. If Isreal laid down their guns they would be wiped out.

The right in Israel don’t want a two state solution. They want Hamas in charge in Gaza and the weak corrupt and ineffective Fata in charge in the West Bank so that they can continue to place illegal settlements there.

 

[cremeegg]

This thread is perhaps the most reasonable debate on this topic anywhere.

I would like to apologise for the tone of my below post, which was uncalled for.

There is nothing funny about it. Republicans consistently siding with the oppressed.

Its just in the last 75 years Israel has gone from oppressed to oppressor.

Some around here just haven't kept up with the evolving situation.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This thread is perhaps the most reasonable debate on this topic anywhere.

I would like to apologise for the tone of my below post, which was uncalled for.

I presume the other boards are overwhelmingly pro Palestinian.
What occurs to me is that almost every point made in this thread, including the ones in the above post (doesn't need an apology), are of themselves valid. Gutteres point is a keen example. "The Hamas barbaric attacks did not occur in a vacuum. They should be seen in the context of 56 years of suffocating occupation". Yes, valid point, but for me absolutely despicable that the sec gen of the UN should make it.

 

[PMU]

I presume the other boards are overwhelmingly pro Palestinian.
What occurs to me is that almost every point made in this thread, including the ones in the above post (doesn't need an apology), are of themselves valid. Gutteres point is a keen example. "The Hamas barbaric attacks did not occur in a vacuum. They should be seen in the context of 56 years of suffocating occupation". Yes, valid point, but for me absolutely despicable that the sec gen of the UN should make it.

The term ‘illegally occupied’ used inter alia by the Irish media and the UN Secretary General gives the impression that Israel launched an attack on the West Bank. It didn’t; it was the victim of aggression in the Six-Day War, when Israel was invaded by the Kingdom of Transjordan. If there was any illegal occupation here it was Jordan’s occupation and annexation of the West Bank in 1948, a maneuver carried out to prevent an independent Arab state being established there in line with the League of Nations / United Nations mandate for Palestine. It’s just wrong and biased to give the impression that Israel’s presence is somehow equivalent to e.g. Russia’s invasion of the Crimea.

After WW2 the Allies / USA occupied Germany and Japan. No one says this was an 'illegal occupation'. They remained there until 1949/1952, i.e. until the new FRG, GDR and reconstituted Japan no longer represented a threat. But the West Bank / Gaza clearly represent a threat, not only to Israel but in the wider Middle East. If not anti-Semitic it’s biased and unacceptable to lecture Israel, a democracy that is under threat, for doing what the West did in a similar situation. There is no ‘illegal occupation’, Israel did not aggressively invade these territories – it responded to armed agression, and it is unlikely the situation will change until relations between the West Bank/Gaza are normalized.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The term ‘illegally occupied’ used inter alia by the Irish media and the UN Secretary General gives the impression that Israel launched an attack on the West Bank. It didn’t; it was the victim of aggression in the Six-Day War, when Israel was invaded by the Kingdom of Transjordan. If there was any illegal occupation here it was Jordan’s occupation and annexation of the West Bank in 1948, a maneuver carried out to prevent an independent Arab state being established there in line with the League of Nations / United Nations mandate for Palestine. It’s just wrong and biased to give the impression that Israel’s presence is somehow equivalent to e.g. Russia’s invasion of the Crimea.

After WW2 the Allies / USA occupied Germany and Japan. No one says this was an 'illegal occupation'. They remained there until 1949/1952, i.e. until the new FRG, GDR and reconstituted Japan no longer represented a threat. But the West Bank / Gaza clearly represent a threat, not only to Israel but in the wider Middle East. If not anti-Semitic it’s biased and unacceptable to lecture Israel, a democracy that is under threat, for doing what the West did in a similar situation. There is no ‘illegal occupation’, Israel did not aggressively invade these territories – it responded to armed agression, and it is unlikely the situation will change until relations between the West Bank/Gaza are normalized.

That all sounds very plausible and almost depicts Israel as 99% in the right. I presume Gutteres has some sort of point in his "suffocating occupation" but are you arguing this was necessary to try and prevent October 7th? Of course one can try counterfactuals - like what if Israel had responded differently to Hamas taking control with a mission to wipe them off the map.
Off topic, but it was perfectly understandable for Russia to annex Crimea, legal or not.

 

[Leper]

In this conflict I am pro Israel. My views differ from my 3rd level qualified offspring. They are forever quoting Rules of War. These rules are written by victors who are in no immediate danger. Nobody considers the rights of those trying to merely survive. The Jews have been mostly treated with contempt for 3000 years. They have been kicked from country to country, even their rights to certain employments were limited. Every rule known to man has been broken in the treatment of the Jews. It’s no wonder they have their own Rules of War and I can’t blame them.

They are literally surrounded by peoples whose raison d’etre is the destruction of Israel. The Israelis turned Israel into a world class country. They’ve irrigated the desert. They desalinise sea water. They’ve built world class defences for air warfare, land warfare and even sea protection. They have had no other choice.

Hamas breaks every Rule of War and take hostages, kill Israelis by gun, rocket and knife. What Rules of War are they subject to? The obvious answer is none. And it was Hamas that started this horrible and tragic episode - they knew Israel was going to react, but they want Israel not to behave like them (Hamas).

We’re told once Hamas is obliterated there will be other terrorist organisations to take their place. The Israelis are used to all these scenarios and consequently have their own Rule of War I,e survive.

 

[odyssey06]

Yes some of the people quoting Rules of War seem to think it is a board game.
Hamas committed war crimes in October 7th and continues to commit them, storing weapons and launching offensive weapons into Israel from built up areas. There is no referee who is going to step in to protect Israel from those war crimes.

Hamas are a death cult. Their attack on October 7th was like something from an SS death squad... door to door, brutalising and brutally executing anyone they could lay their hands on without regard to civilian status, age, gender. Anybody who thinks a death cult who has taken over a territory can be neatly removed in some sort of police operation is living in fantasy land. The deaths in Gaza that follow, ultimately Hamas are culpable.

Israel has the right under international law to engage Hamas and when Hamas acts like that, Israel has considerable leeway under international law to attack those targets.

What is a war crime and is international law being broken in Israel and Gaza?

Israel and Hamas have repeatedly accused each other of war crimes.

www.thejournal.ie

 

[Purple]

Israel has the right under international law to engage Hamas and when Hamas acts like that, Israel has considerable leeway under international law to attack those targets.

There is a lack of humanity in most of the rhetoric coming from the Israeli government. They will do nothing to help find a peaceful political solution to the current problem because they, like Egypt and Jordan and most of the Arab countries in the region, do not want a functioning Palestinian country.

 

[cremeegg]

Speaking for myself, though I suspect @Purple is not a million miles away, I am totally against indiscriminate revenge against civilians or any violation of international law.

Yet that is exactly what is happening.

I also accept that the Hamas barbaric massacre has a context; though not sure about the 56 years of "suffocating" occupation.
The issue for me is about the pronouncements of our leaders. It is not enough that what they say is correct. Thankfully our leaders stopped short of putting the Hamas butchery in context

You have lost me here. 'the Haamas barbaric massacre has a context'. I agree.

'Thankfully our leaders stopped short of putting the Hamas butchery in context' If you think that why should our leaders not say so. Understandably not in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack, but now 3 weeks later when Israel has responded by carpet bombing areas full of civilians including children. I think that the wider picture very much has to be seen.

 

[Sophrosyne]

They will do nothing to help find a peaceful political solution to the current problem because they, like Egypt and Jordan and most of the Arab countries in the region, do not want a functioning Palestinian country.

I don’t know whether it is that they don’t want or don’t care.

Some reports suggest that Hamas was frustrated that Palestine was forgotten by Middle Eastern States, hence the horrific and provocative attack on October 7.

Each ME state is concerned with its own stability & economic security - many require western aid to survive and more might be needed.

Constant warfare has destroyed the ecological viability of many countries within the Middle East & North Africa (MENA region).

Despite denials for years, even the wealthiest states seem to have finally woken up to the likely effect of climate change and incrementally decreasing western dependence on fossil fuels. Kuwait, for instance, has already reached a temperature of 53.2 degrees Celsius in June 2021.

If the worst came to the worst, large tracts of the MENA region might be uninhabitable in coming decades due to blistering temperatures and rising sea levels and before that will suffer from extreme water & food shortages and economic collapse.

So, while they might give lip service to the Palestinian cause, they have more important fish to fry.

There is a lack of humanity in most of the rhetoric coming from the Israeli government.

People say that truth is the first casualty of war, but it may equally be humanity.

It is sacrificed on the altars of competitive justification and competitive moral detachment.

 

[Purple]

Yet that is exactly what is happening.

No it's not. If that was what was happening there would be tens or hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinians. If Hamas fire a rocket as Israel the IFD fire at the launch position. Hamas are choosing to maximise the casualties amongst the civilian population because that makes for bad Press for Israel. They care not a whit about their own people.

You have lost me here. 'the Haamas barbaric massacre has a context'. I agree.

'Thankfully our leaders stopped short of putting the Hamas butchery in context' If you think that why should our leaders not say so. Understandably not in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack,

Because it would take hours to put it in context and whataboutery in the face of evil just sounds like a justification for that evil.

but now 3 weeks later when Israel has responded by carpet bombing areas full of civilians including children.

That's complete and utter nonsense and the sort of hyperbole I'd expect from the anti Semitic hacks in RTE, not from you. You can argue that Israel's response is disproportionate (whatever that actually means) or that it's counter productive or that it is knowingly putting civilian lives at risk because of the blood lust of Hamas but you know well that Israel are not carpet bombing anywhere.

I think that the wider picture very much has to be seen.

I agree.

 

[Purple]

I don’t know whether it is that they don’t want or don’t care.

I agree with your post but I'm firmly of the opinion that they don't want it. Imagine it's 1985 and the IRA of the was running Northern Ireland after winning an election and murdering the main SDLP and Unionist politicians. Imagine of they had destroyed the economy, enriched themselves, controlled the media and were still committed to the destruction of this State, viewed members of out Police, Parliament, armed forces and judiciary as legitimate targets and were actively trying to kill them. They had also openly stated that they regarded anyone who supported any of those institutions of even the existence of this State as worthy of death. Imagine that they still wanted to take us out of the EU (EEC), were isolationist and ethno-nationalist... In that circumstance would you support them and want them running this country?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

What is a proportionate response? It's certainly not a numbers game as many examples, of which Hiroshima is probably the starkest, show.
I lived in an IRA No Go area in West Belfast at the height of the Troubles. It was a launch pad for terrorist activity against the State and the Unionist community, which was not without its tacit supporters. The official response was in the hands of the British government and I never felt threatened by it - surely no question but that it was proportionate.
Now if NI was on its own (as Wilson suggested to Garret) then the Unionist people would have felt under dire threat of being "wiped off the map". That would have been scary - and the official response would undoubtedly have weighed into the Catholic population in self defence - would that have been disproportionate?

 

[Purple]

What is a proportionate response? It's certainly not a numbers game as many examples, of which Hiroshima is probably the starkest example, show.

It's the total absence of a strategic response that I find striking. There is certainly a tactical military response but there is no response that leads me to think that there is an end goal in mind. When planning it's a good idea to ask the "and then what?" question three times. I don't think the Israelis have asked it once.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

It's the total absence of a strategic response that I find striking. There is certainly a tactical military response but there is no response that leads me to think that there is an end goal in mind. When planning it's a good idea to ask the "and then what?" question three times. I don't think the Israelis have asked it once.

Agree with that. There is no good ending in this for Israel, no matter which course they follow. No good for Gaza either. Everything is going to plan for Hamas.

 

[Purple]

Agree with that. There is no good ending in this for Israel, no matter which course they follow. No good for Gaza either. Everything is going to plan for Hamas.

Yep, death, destruction, radicalisation and the reduction in the chances of the peaceful coexistence of Israel and a Palestinian State. That was Hamas's objective and the fundamentalists running Israel are knowingly playing into their hands.

 

[cremeegg]

No it's not. If that was what was happening there would be tens or hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinians.

There are thousands of dead Palestinians up to half of them children. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033

Or if you don't trust the AP try the radical Financial Times, some of the pictures are horrific.

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

ig.ft.com

Here is an extract

As of October 17, satellite image analysis shows damage to large areas of south Rimal, including around hospitals, universities and schools. Some entire neighbourhoods have been destroyed.

Residents say such devastation in an area that is home to Gaza’s better-off has a particular symbolic impact, showing that no area is safe. Often known as the heart of the Gaza Strip, it attracted visitors from across the territory and is noted for markets and street food vendors, along with its green space, port and beach.