International News Israel Palestine conflict

[MustardYellow]

I'm not entirely sure what you expected, this is an incredibly emotive subject and the responses reflect that. I'm not even sure it's a left v right debate. I think lumping you in with MY is actually unfair - unlike you, he lacks compassion and empathy.

I would suggest if you find this 'toxic', simply don't engage, it's unlikely you will change anyone's mind.

Understanding the concepts of international law = lacking 'compassion and empathy'.

Hmm. Okay.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

They are dying in a war. It's sad, but that's war for you. What exactly do you expect me to do about it? Go to Gaza and defend them?

If you feel this strongly about it then I suggest directing your anger towards Hamas. Israel has the right to protect it's national security.

I bring you back to my analogy though Mustard, there must be a limit to "protecting national security", where does the realm of that end? Ultimately, that could be used as a justification for Israel killing every human in Gaza, because they can't rule out anyone is in Hamas.

Even if you accept it's a war, the west has rules of engagement in war. The absolute minimum is you should be doing everything in your power to protect children.

I can see the point you're trying to argue, I just think it's a bit simplistic. I agree with you, Hamas is an evil organisation, but that shouldn't be used as a justification for actions which are clearly, to most people's mind, beyond the limit.

I'd also point out Israel going too far is more likely to radicalise moderates, and radicalise muslims all over the world.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

I'm not entirely sure what you expected, this is an incredibly emotive subject and the responses reflect that. I'm not even sure it's a left v right debate. I think lumping you in with MY is actually unfair - unlike you, he lacks compassion and empathy.

I would suggest if you find this 'toxic', simply don't engage, it's unlikely you will change anyone's mind.

I don't think this should be about left and right. The west can't wash its hands with this fiasco which we helped to create. Britain and America has a responsibility to mediate and to try and control Netanyahu. I've met plenty of Israel's who absolutely detest Netanyahu.

My ultimate fear is that @Essexyellows is right, there is no long-term peaceful solution.

Edit: A long term peaceful situation is possible, but it would require major concessions on both sides which I simply don't see happening (and 100% not under Netanyahu). Israel made a grave error with it's settlements in the west bank, they must allow Palestinians to live there, and crucially share resources. Israel being so brutal towards Palestine only makes it easier for Hamas to recruit, whether they like it or not, they have a responsibility to improve living standards for Palestinians.

 

[Big Ron]

Understanding the concepts of international law = lacking 'compassion and empathy'.

Hmm. Okay.

I love that in your mind "understanding the concepts of international law" means you can't be lacking in compassion and empathy. You're wasted here - you should be following your calling in the International Court of Justice as you've certainly put us all in our place with your superior reasoning and intellect. I guess it's also good that any criticism of Israel is couched in terms of you not agreeing with everything that goes on in the West Bank!

We are talking about actual people here - including the deaths of thousands and thousands of non-combatants.

 

[Scotchegg]

We have to remember that Mustard is very young and has very little understanding of anything outside of Google and TikTok, and these rarely provide any context.

It's difficult engaging with someone who doesn't understand their own argument because it's not theirs but someone they have quoted.

It is best ignoring them and engaging with others who may have different view, but they are at least educated views.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

Understanding the concepts of international law = lacking 'compassion and empathy'.

Hmm. Okay.

I'm definitely changing as I grow older when I find myself increasingly agreeing with Ron!

You're a young guy and clearly intelligent, so don't think I'm trying to lecture you because I'm not at all.

But legal =/= ethical. Companies finding loopholes to avoid hundreds of millions in tax is legal but morally wrong.

 

[MustardYellow]

I bring you back to my analogy though Mustard, there must be a limit to "protecting national security", where does the realm of that end? Ultimately, that could be used as a justification for Israel killing every human in Gaza, because they can't rule out anyone is in Hamas.

Even if you accept it's a war, the west has rules of engagement in war. The absolute minimum is you should be doing everything in your power to protect children.

I can see the point you're trying to argue, I just think it's a bit simplistic. I agree with you, Hamas is an evil organisation, but that shouldn't be used as a justification for actions which are clearly, to most people's mind, beyond the limit.

I'd also point out Israel going too far is more likely to radicalise moderates, and radicalise muslims all over the world.

I suppose that's for Israel to decide. WW2 ended after Germany + Japans surrender. If they hadn't have surrendered, how far would the allies have gone? Would we have invaded and claimed Germany? We never know. In WW1 Germany and the allies mutually agreed to end the fighting. Would Hamas & Israel agree to that? It looks like no, but again, if there wasn't the Armistice how far would we have gone to keep ourselves safe? It's not an easy topic because there is really no answer and nobody knows.

My issue is this - if Hamas are using civilian areas (which they are), legally making those areas legitimate military targets, that's against international law. They are legally using civilians as shields (I posted the part of the Geneva convention that explains this earlier). If Israel then hit these legitimate military targets and civilians are among the casualties, that's on Hamas. If we're saying Israel should not hit those targets (even though legally they can), then how is that fair? Hamas get to launch attacks, then just hide amongst civilians preventing any come back from Israel? That's morally and legally wrong.

This is why the phrase 'Israel has the right to defend itself' is so often used, because Hamas' use of international law breaking tactics does not extinguish Israel's right to defence.

 

[MustardYellow]

We have to remember that Mustard is very young and has very little understanding of anything outside of Google and TikTok, and these rarely provide any context.

It's difficult engaging with someone who doesn't understand their own argument because it's not theirs but someone they have quoted.

It is best ignoring them and engaging with others who may have different view, but they are at least educated views.

'You're young and young people watch TikTok, therefore you're stupid'

At your big age I thought you'd have at least learnt tolerance of opinion.

 

[QR]

They are dying in a war. It's sad, but that's war for you. What exactly do you expect me to do about it? Go to Gaza and defend them?

If you feel this strongly about it then I suggest directing your anger towards Hamas. Israel has the right to protect it's national security.

I see people taking one of two broad stances on this board.

There are those who condemn the barbaric Hamas attack on 7 October and Netanyahu's indiscriminate slaughter of ten of thousands of innocent Palestinians with equal horror.

And then there are those who condemn Hamas but make excuses for Netanyahu's murderous excesses.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

I see people taking one of two broad stances on this board.

There are those who condemn the barbaric Hamas attack on 7 October and Netanyahu's indiscriminate slaughter of ten of thousands of innocent Palestinians with equal horror.

And then there are those who condemn Hamas but make excuses for Netanyahu's murderous excesses.

If you are outraged by Hamas actions on 7 October but defend Israel's actions 100% since, that's an illogical argument.

People having the tribal blinkers on with this issue is part of the reason a solution feels impossible.

Most humans just want peace and safety for their families.

 

[bashamwonderland]

Understanding the concepts of international law = lacking 'compassion and empathy'.

Hmm. Okay.

You understand the concepts of international law...

How many years PQE are you, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[chromeyellow]

You're an extremely emotional individual, aren't you?

Categorising any and all deaths during a war as a 'slaughter' is insanely emotive, and frankly a bit silly.

No one has actually defended anything of the sort. I've merely pointed out that your understanding of international law is fundamentally wrong.

I don't characterise any and all deaths in conflcit as a "slaughter" only when civilians and esepcially childrene are being killed in unprecedented numbers,


As you seem to be unaware of the concept of occupation I don'th think i'll be taking any lessons on international law fron you, thanks

 

[Marked Ox]

We saw a snippet of what they'd do on October 7th - they'd kill everyone. There's no proof Israel are intentionally targeting civilians, yet we have significant proof Hamas target innocent Israeli's (Nova music festival, one huge and horrific example).

The West Bank is a different conversation. They aren't governed by Hamas. I don't agree with a lot of what happens there.

This conflict is all about 'us against them'. What Hamas do to Israelis is so barbaric because they see all Israelis as the enemy. The way some Palestinians are treated in the West Bank by settlers is so awful because they see all Palestinians as 'out to get them', or a potential future enemy.

There's so much hatred and possibly more importantly at times, distrust, that small problems escalate and there's a constant suspicion and assumption of danger from one another.

No, the West Bank isn't a different conversation, it is the same conversation. What Israel (the same military/Govt) is doing there is equally barbaric.

Israel is targeting civilians through causing a famine, there are videos of Palestinians stood still with their arms up being shot by Israeli troops, Red Crescent ambulances being blown up/shot at, snipers shooting kids, bombing refugee camps where the IDF have told Palestinians to go to for safety etc etc:

‘Not a normal war’: doctors say children have been targeted by Israeli snipers in Gaza

IDF says it ‘completely rejects’ charge that its soldiers deliberately fired on any of the thousands of civilians killed in Israeli offensive

www.theguardian.com

Cousin of Hind Rajab, 6, haunted by her last call after family car shot at in Gaza

Mohammed Hamada says he is devastated by death of Palestinian girl and relatives, whose bodies have now been recovered

www.theguardian.com

and for more detail on the above: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024...n-deliberate-israeli-fire-found-after-12-days

The above has been reported in the Washington Post, New York Times, Le Monde , Reuters, ITV and others as well.

And yet international journalists are being stopped by Israel from seeing what is happening on the ground, I wonder why that is?!

Sadly, barbaric actions are happening on both sides.

 

[Mojofilter]

I'm beginning to think we might not be able to sort this one out amongst ourselves on here.

 

[Big Ron]

I suppose that's for Israel to decide. WW2 ended after Germany + Japans surrender. If they hadn't have surrendered, how far would the allies have gone? Would we have invaded and claimed Germany? We never know. In WW1 Germany and the allies mutually agreed to end the fighting. Would Hamas & Israel agree to that? It looks like no, but again, if there wasn't the Armistice how far would we have gone to keep ourselves safe? It's not an easy topic because there is really no answer and nobody knows.

My issue is this - if Hamas are using civilian areas (which they are), legally making those areas legitimate military targets, that's against international law. They are legally using civilians as shields (I posted the part of the Geneva convention that explains this earlier). If Israel then hit these legitimate military targets and civilians are among the casualties, that's on Hamas. If we're saying Israel should not hit those targets (even though legally they can), then how is that fair? Hamas get to launch attacks, then just hide amongst civilians preventing any come back from Israel? That's morally and legally wrong.

This is why the phrase 'Israel has the right to defend itself' is so often used, because Hamas' use of international law breaking tactics does not extinguish Israel's right to defence.

Ah, having that explained by an expert in international law, I'm feeling a lot better about this now - so, there have been 30,000+ 'shields'? Simple when it's explained.

 

[Big Ron]

I'm beginning to think we might not be able to sort this one out amongst ourselves on here.

I disagree - we were going round in circles until Amal Clooney started posting under a pseudonym. We're all as one now.

 

[Big Ron]

I'm definitely changing as I grow older when I find myself increasingly agreeing with Ron!

You're a young guy and clearly intelligent, so don't think I'm trying to lecture you because I'm not at all.

But legal =/= ethical. Companies finding loopholes to avoid hundreds of millions in tax is legal but morally wrong.

You need to be careful - I'm coming for you!

 

[Marked Ox]

Ah, having that explained by an expert in international law, I'm feeling a lot better about this now - so, there have been 30,000+ 'shields'? Simple when it's explained.

Nevermind the International Court of Justice calling genocide by Israel as plausible, they clearly missed a trick.

 

[Scotchegg]

'You're young and young people watch TikTok, therefore you're stupid'

Not all young people, just you. You haven't demonstrated a single independent thought across numerous threads and have admitted to getting your news from Google and social media.

Opinions I can tolerate. Ignorance I can't.

 

[Mojofilter]

Not all young people, just you. You haven't demonstrated a single independent thought across numerous threads and have admitted to getting your news from Google and social media.

Opinions I can tolerate. Ignorance I can't.

then ignore him. The superior attitude doesn't help your cause (any of them) and it clearly doesn't do your old man blood pressure much good either