Boundless arrogance? — tim wood

Israel is the law — tim wood

:chin: Kind of making my point for me there, buddy.


But no, Israel is not 'the law'. As the occupier it cannot claim self-defense, and armed resistance against an occupation is legal under international law.

And of course, the idea that Israel has to resort to apartheid, ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate bombing, etc. to defend itself is a not a serious argument to begin with.

I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got. — tim wood

A-ha. The people who have lived under a brutal occupation for half a century are in control? Genius.

The only control they have is the extent to which Israel has, through its own belligerence, manoeuvred itself into a position where there are no more good outcomes for Israel.

They're in control, because the only way a good outcome for Israel can be produced is for the Palestinians to magically disappear. (but it seems in the absence of miracles the current Israeli government has no qualms with "moving fate along".)

What a joke.


What about:

Give Palestinians equal rights. End the crimes against humanity.

The problem is that, given the shifting geopolitical situation, Israel is not going to survive such a round of conflicts. It is a tiny nation amid a sea of historical enemies.

It would be really callous to take such a stance, in effect saying: "Just let history take its course once more." — Tzeentch

So was the Netherlands, technically, but they projected real power across the globe. Israel is just trying to keep itself existing, not even an imperial global empire.

Just a cursory history from ChatGPT of the Netherlands:

Eighty Years' War (1568-1648):
The Eighty Years' War, fought for religious and political autonomy against the Spanish Empire, was a significant period of violence leading to the establishment of the independent Dutch Republic.

Dutch East India Company (VOC) and Colonial Violence:
Dutch colonial expansion, notably through the VOC, resulted in violence against local populations in regions such as the Dutch East Indies.

Thirty Years' War (1618-1648):
The Thirty Years' War, a complex conflict involving multiple European powers, had significant implications for the Dutch Republic. The war contributed to the economic and political rise of the Dutch Republic as it gained formal recognition at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1795-1815):
The French occupation during this period led to political changes in the Netherlands and included instances of violence.

World War II Occupation (1940-1945):
The Nazi occupation resulted in widespread violence and suffering, with the Dutch resistance engaging in acts of sabotage.

Decolonization and Indonesian War of Independence (1945-1949):
The Netherlands faced violence during the decolonization process, particularly in Indonesia, where the Dutch attempted to retain control.

Modern Terrorism and Political Violence:
In recent decades, the Netherlands has experienced instances of terrorism, such as the 2004 assassination of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, highlighting contemporary challenges.

Each of these historical events has shaped the trajectory of the Netherlands, contributing to its development, identity, and global influence. — ChatGPT

The Netherlands, along with many European actors, created the modern world. What does self-determination mean really? At the end of the day, it is when people let go of past grievances. Nazi Germany didn't let go and were resentful until completely dismantled, for example. For the Netherlands, it was after almost a century of bloody conflicts. I don't want it to be carried out thus.

It would be best if people's went on with their lives, and allowed others to do the same without resort to religious or personal blood feuds, that is true. Peace must prevail more than hate. Surely, Hamas does not represent anywhere close to non-hate. Netanyahu is not good for peace either, though I am by no means equivocating the two. Simply that, even if Hamas wasn't the looming threat, he is independently a self-serving and divisive leader that won't lead to peace. Hamas does need to be dismantled, and the Israelis need to find a new leadership. However, Netanyahu is right about de-radicalizing the Palestinians.. It does need to happen, but that is a concerted internal effort of self-purging of the hate cycle and moving forward from holding onto past grudges as one's sole identity. Certainly, that is perpetuated with the current violence, but it was there that led to this round of violence. At some point, someone has to cut it at its psychological roots and make the hard decisions to not stay on current ways of thinking and current policy.

What about: Give Palestinians equal rights. End the crimes against humanity. — Tzeentch

One state, equal rights, the only way: you and I have already agreed on this. (If only everyone else would - or could!)

But no, Israel is not 'the law'. — Tzeentch

If not them, then who? Always I have in mind Oct. 7th. And in case you did not notice the question, if not them, then who? In passing I note that Israeli "crimes against humanity" arise entirely from their desire - and right - not to be murdered and to take action to defend themselves.

For events prior to Oct. 7th. It appears to me the Palestinians' responsibility is by any standard not less than half, and by any reasonable standard nearly all. And one way of seeing it is to recognize that Palestinian actions always seem to be under some principle, whereas Israelis always seem to be reacting; and as to Israeli actions that might be objected to, they're more in the way of some Israelis and some actions. Except of course when they're at war. Which, after Oct. 7th, it seems reasonable to assume they are (and which arguably they have never not been).

But the hostages! And those murdered! On these, imo, justice must have its full say or there is no justice. And the war itself is not that saying but is instead only an establishing of ground on which justice can stand.

Near as I can tell, the Palestinians can have peace and life, or war and death, a choice under their control. And the Israelis do not have the luxury of such a choice.

One state, equal rights, the only way: you and I have already agreed on this. (If only everyone else would - or could!) — tim wood

The only way, which is also a complete impossibility. There isn't a chance in the world that Jews want to give up Israel as they know it in exchange for that. Out of all the possible ways to end the conflict, this suggestion seems NICE but also near the bottom of the "likely to happen" list. If that's the only way... well, then Palestine's fucked.

It's my belief that the most responsible thing for people to promote is ideas that are actual possible to happen, real paths toward peace that have more than a chance in hell of being adopted by the relevant parties. Palestinians have been promised their right to return for generations by now, it should be clear that that promise is an empty one, the harsh truth is there's no return. If they accept a future without that, they actually have a chance of building prosperity for themselves

The only way, which is also a complete impossibility. There isn't a chance in the world that Jews want to give up Israel as they know it in exchange for that. Out of all the possible ways to end the conflict, this suggestion seems NICE but also near the bottom of the "likely to happen" list. If that's the only way... well, then Palestine's fucked. — flannel jesus

The cultures and what they want are too far apart. How would the governance even work? Also those kind of confederations need to be mutually beneficial. Israel's parliament, at least in terms of its own governance, excepting Netanyahu's extremism in terms of the judiciary, has been working quite well for them. Why would one shift radically to a new form of government that would take power away from their own current polity's ability to vote in who they want? Rather, the two state solution would be the only way someone who already has a well-functioning government would would prefer it one would think, and for good reason. If they were in a position of utter weakness, perhaps this would have worked where they were just wanting any power sharing they could get.

If that's the only way... well, then Palestine's fucked. — flannel jesus

Maybe, but who f**ked them? Ans.: themselves first of all, and then their "friends," beliefs, and religion. And of course once a person or a people have well and thoroughly f**cked themselves, their last resort is professional victimhood, in which they disavow any responsibility whatsoever, being through-and-through nothing but poor victims.

But for sheer possibility, let's look at the post war history of the Axis powers of WWII. They had defeat forced upon them and then they undertook the honorable work of rebuilding and self-rehabilitation, with appropriate rewards at every step. And they have done pretty well. Not a possibility for the Palestinians? Who says?

However, Netanyahu is right about de-radicalizing the Palestinians. — schopenhauer1

Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing.

Just curious, is there other nations and leaders you also don’t approve of?

Boundless arrogance?
— tim wood

Israel is the law
— tim wood

:chin: Kind of making my point for me there, buddy. — Tzeentch

:smirk: :up:

Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing. — Tzeentch

:100:

Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing. — Tzeentch

aaannd we've entered into conspiracy theory territory. Or is Netanyahu actually Meir Kahane in disguise, back from the dead?

But for sheer possibility, let's look at the post war history of the Axis powers of WWII. They had defeat forced upon them and then they undertook the honorable work of rebuilding and self-rehabilitation, with appropriate rewards at every step. And they have done pretty well. Not a possibility for the Palestinians? Who says? — tim wood

Being a citizen of a country that survived WW2 and is seen as being part of the Axis (even if we fought the Germans later), you really should think twice when countries have to do "the honorable work of rebuilding and self-rehabilitiation, with appropriate rewards at every step."

Germany had to do it. Even if East Germany, being all Marxist-Leninists and so, would hypocritically declare itself having nothing to do with the Holocaust. They, East-Germany, are the example of how people and nations avoid true guilt when it should be faced. Yet West Germany has done a lot to confront it's actual past. As the saying goes, if you are losing an argument to a (West) German, then you can always grab the "Hitler card"! Aber Sie haben die Juden geschlachtet. Then the German will be as hapless as an white American after uttering accidentally the N-word in the presence of other Americans. The German has to acknowledge that yes, they indeed killed all those Jews.

But for my country, we simply don't see it that way. We didn't attack anyone. Period. The diplomatically inconvenient moment of joining the 1941 offensive was cleared by the Soviet Air Force instantly bombing us even Finland had taken any action. The armed forces that joined NATO last year is the same armed forces that fought the Soviet Union first by itself, then alongside Germany and then gave the true "Dolchstoss" to it's former brothers in arms, The Third Reich, which just had assisted the country to fight the Soviet offensive to a standstill.. We have the same political parties around that were present prior to WW2, and also the same constitution. Hence when a Finnish general who had fought in WW2 was in the post-war era confronted by Westerners making the accusation "You fought with Hitler", he snapped back "And you fought with Stalin!". What remorse he had to show? Perhaps for the

And I think you should understand that Palestinians simply won't see any problem with themselves. The history is too clear here: European Jews came to the country they were living in and formed a country where they were living. That narrative is too simple, too clear, for them to have any issues about themselves being here the culprits. What really have the Palestinians done wrong? And what kind of option is this Israeli administration giving them?

This is why I say this is a conflict which I don't see any peaceful or negotiated solution to. A lot of things would have to change in order for that to happen.

Or is Netanyahu actually Meir Kahane in disguise, back from the dead? — BitconnectCarlos

Bibi needs his coalition partners, who actually are quite close to Meir Kahane. That's the problem here. They really are former terrorists... or terrorists that got free and to positions to further their agenda now.

What really have the Palestinians done wrong? And what kind of option is this Israeli administration giving them? — ssu

As usual your words have weight that at the least call for a considered response. Mine in these terms:
that while there is sense in yours, I cannot help observing what seems a common error. A kind of category error that arises from being imprecise with and about the use of abstract names. E.g., Finland did this, Finland did that, the Finns did this and they did that. But, that was then. And if, it seems to me, you are to make any case about Finns or Finland now based on them then, then you must make the connections explicit - because such connections as they are, are essentially abstract, and thus the argument to establish their force or value as causative in any sense must bridge the gap from abstract to concrete, from then till now.

An example from the US. There are folks who think reparations should be paid to black Americans for slavery. I think you are able to see the nonsense in this, part of which being that no slaves are alive to pay the money to. This simple fact making it clear that whatever any payments might be for, they cannot be for slavery.

So, that Palestine this or that, or that Palestinians this or that, then, is of abstract interest now. And a failure to rigorously account for any significance now allows for people now to claim benefit for an offense committed against someone else long ago, that might not even have been an offense, was not committed against them, and that they use and ground and warrant - their excuse - to murder without scruple or responsibility for their actions. This being in part what i call above a kind of professional victimhood.

When I reference the Axis powers I only mean that peoples bombed nearly back to the stone age and regarded as pariahs for crimes committed have largely recovered. If anyone says the Palestinians cannot accomplish the same, then the question I have is, why not?

Personally I don't have anything against Jews or Israeli Jews. I've met few, they were very smart people and actually didn't like how politics were going in their country, but naturally were very patriotic. Yes, the truth is that those lunatics dancing around in meetings and purposing new settlements in Gaza with the "voluntary removal" of Palestinians won't create empathy for the Jewish cause.

Yes, it will also increase anti-semitism as there are those that are prone to hate all people of certain group for the actions of either governments or some people (like terrorists). Hatred of Russians is another perfect example of this. But many Russians here were shocked by what Putin had done when attacking Ukraine. Hence I'm not going to for example ban Russian restaurants... they don't have President Putin's photo or the orange-black colours or "Z" up on their walls.

And what "Canary in the coal mine" are you talking about? — ssu

It's more than that, at least in the US. I don't know how things are in Finland. Plenty of countries have right wing leadership and are involved with land disputes with other countries. Yet we don't hear about those, Somalia for instance. Today 19 students from Brown decided to go on hunger strike for Gaza. We're seeing roads get blocked and airports blocked off by protesters for Palestine. IIRC there's been like an 800% in antisemitic incidents or attacks quarterly... city council meetings in California where blood libels about israel stealing palestinian organs are mentioned. numerous violent protests against the police here in the US and across the world far exceeding anything we saw opposing Russia. Public figures such as politicians and CEOs who support Israel are harassed in public and their private events crashed by screaming protesters who have begun hiring their own security services (yellow armbands.) Synagogues faced with bomb threats and graffiti here in the US.

Federal investigations have opened against schools, IIRC, in New York and California for preaching antisemitism. DEI has ignored Jews for decades, portraying them as white oppressors. Dozens of Jewish families have withdrawn their children from these areas. I could go on about this. Check out the Ami Horowitz video where he goes to a college in San Francisco:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbm4mao4-k0

Much of it occurs in educated cities, liberal areas. By "canary in the coalmine" I see it as an early sign of things to come especially if this remains unchecked.

Bibi needs his coalition partners, who actually are quite close to Meir Kahane. That's the problem here. They really are former terrorists... or terrorists that got free and to positions to further their agenda now. — ssu

For sure people like Ben Gvir are right-wing extremists.

Many if not most of the kibbutzim that Hamas attacked on 10/7 were some of the most left-leaning, pro-integrationist settlements in Israel. They would employ Palestinians, drive them to hospitals, etc. It was those Palestinians who gave Hamas the intel it needed to successfully attack. And we wonder why people like Ben Gvir rise to power.

So, that Palestine this or that, or that Palestinians this or that, then, is of abstract interest now. And a failure to rigorously account for any significance now allows for people now to claim benefit for an offense committed against someone else long ago, that might not even have been an offense, was not committed against them, and that they use and ground and warrant - their excuse - to murder without scruple or responsibility for their actions. This being in part what i call above a kind of professional victimhood. — tim wood

I would get your point if this would be about something that has happened some time ago. Unfortunately the war is going on right now. It isn't at all abstract now, hasn't been abstract for a long time. This isn't just a thing with the Palestinian diaspora, this is a thing with those people now there. That it has gone for 75 years is the sad part. This problem ought to have solved when the Cold War was over, but it didn't.

I see it as an early sign of things to come especially if this remains unchecked. — BitconnectCarlos

And it's not helpful that this issue becomes part of the moronic culture war, and isn't being able to be talked as an foreign policy issue.

DEI has ignored Jews for decades, portraying them as white oppressors. — BitconnectCarlos

Just shows how absolutely crazy these "anti-racism" racists are. But naturally there's no logic to these stupidities, it is only a matter of convenience what the present hated or feared group is by the haters, be they the Jews, the Irish, the Muslims, the Japanese, the Chinese, whoever and whatever.

Many if not most of the kibbutzim that Hamas attacked on 10/7 were some of the most left-leaning, pro-integrationist settlements in Israel. They would employ Palestinians, drive them to hospitals, etc. It was those Palestinians who gave Hamas the intel it needed to successfully attack. And we wonder why people like Ben Gvir rise to power. — BitconnectCarlos

That is true. And that makes my point that religious zealots have hijacked the situation on both sides. I still would think that the majority of people would be OK if there would negotiated two-state solution and then actual peace. But that majority is silenced and naturally takes the side.

It was those Palestinians who gave Hamas the intel it needed to successfully attack. — BitconnectCarlos

No. The success of the October 7th attacks lies on the false assumption that a high tech wall can make Israel safe. The falsehood was here that the wall was intended for minor breakthrough attempts, not a large-scale well planned operation similar to a military operation. The wall was simply not built for that. They simply didn't anticipate this kind of attack. Yet likely Hamas had been for years thinking of this while digging all those tunnels.

And we wonder why people like Ben Gvir rise to power. — BitconnectCarlos

That rise only shows the failure of "Mr. Security", prime minister Netanyahu. Because to assume that people like Ben Gvir will fix the problem is simply delusional. (Far more worse than thinking that Trump is the God-Emperor saviour for the US.) As if the "voluntary removal" of 2 million Palestinians and the building of new settlements in a Palestinian free-Gaza (forgot what the Jewish name for the place is) will be the success story you can dance about. Nope, this is just going to be one disaster among the many disasters that the Jewish people have endured. And so for the Palestinians too.

Israel actually shows how ugly Western democracies can become if you think that perpetual low-intensity conflict with a minor war flare up every decade is something "normal". One can imagine if the UK would have used similar force in Northern Ireland and bombed IRA sympathizing Catholic villages there by the RAF and shelled them with artillery fire. Yep, guess what the response would have been by the IRA? You think they would have less volunteers? It isn't hard to understand that in that kind of ugly UK there would come a politician that would simply talk about "voluntarily" moving all the Catholics and those who want to join Ireland to be moved to Ireland proper. They are simply so nasty and that's what they want, right?

Just shows how absolutely crazy these "anti-racism" racists are. But naturally there's no logic to these stupidities, it is only a matter of convenience what the present hated or feared group is by the haters, be they the Jews, the Irish, the Muslims, the Japanese, the Chinese, whoever and whatever. — ssu

Some of these groups are nationalities, others are religions -- can one not question an ideology? Or should we just immediately accept it if it's a religion? I'm wary of any religion which seeks to convert the world to its creed.

And that makes my point that religious zealots have hijacked the situation on both sides. — ssu

I'm no expert on Israeli politics, but Netanyahu, while certainly right wing, does not strike me as a religious extremist. I would question his level of observance/religious outlook and I do not group him in with e.g Kach although I understand the relationship between the two groups is nuanced and do share some common goals.

That rise only shows the failure of "Mr. Security", prime minister Netanyahu. Because to assume that people like Ben Gvir will fix the problem is simply delusional. — ssu

What I was saying was if it is true that Palestinians working at these kibbutzim aided Hamas in the 10/7 attacks then that lends credence to Ben Gvir's (and his party, which is the ideological successor of Kach -- Meir Kahane's party; the true far right of Israeli politics) notion of the Arab muslims as a fifth column that clearly threatens the democratic health of the state. It's unfortunate. Israel can attempt to integrate. There are muslim judges and muslims who hold respectable posts in the IDF, but Israel is still a new state and these religious differences are deeply entrenched.

Yep, guess what the response would have been by the IRA? You think they would have less volunteers?

I dislike comparisons between the IRA conflict with Britain and the Israel-Palestine conflict. When 1200 are murdered I'm fine with shelling. I'm fine with air strikes.

Catholics and Protestants are the same religion. Jews and Muslims (Jews and muslims almost surely have more in common than Jews and Christians, theologically) are not -- especially the fundamentalism of Hamas that seeps through the society through every institution. Islam (especially fundamentalist Islam), imho, manages to combine the most dangerous, potent elements of Judaism and Christianity and does so as the youngest of the bunch having undergone the least amount of reform.

I'd be more sympathetic to the IRA/UK comparison if the IRA wanted to capture all of the UK, establish hardline Catholic rule and subjugate the Protestants.

If an Islamic terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah acquired a nuclear weapon, what is the probability they would use it against a city in Europe or Israel or America? If anyone thinks it's less than 10%, can you explain why you think they would show restraint?

aaannd we've entered into conspiracy theory territory. — BitconnectCarlos

Nice joke.

The Israeli newspapers have spoken openly about what they call the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance', and how Netanyahu intentionally sought to get Rabin assassinated.

I think what we've entered is in fact 'head-in-sand' territory.

Just curious, is there other nations and leaders you also don’t approve of? — schopenhauer1

I have no problem with nations, but their leaders are almost exclusively a bunch of clowns. I'd have to think long and hard to find any nation that has a leader I do approve of.

But this problem may also depend on some implicit assumptions that mislead our understanding of the problem itself.

Yes there is a risk of that, although provided these contradictions are understood one can reach a balanced reading of the situation.

For example I am deeply critical of some foreign policy strategy and choices made by the US (the command and administration working through these crises in partnership). While at the same time would dearly love the international peace and order maintained by US hegemony to continue.
It’s true there is a facade of “a free and fair society for all” while behind the scenes there is a more complex geopolitical struggle going on. In which the rules are bent and the history whitewashed. But what is the alternative?

I often think what a China hegemony might be like. I think there would probably be much less war and more prosperity on the good side, while behind the scenes it could be a 1984 (George Orwell) scenario. We have the example of the reintegration of Hong Kong into China as an example.

Going back to the issue at hand, I see the problem as Israel not abiding by anything reasonable and within the bounds of the US hegemony. Israel is an unruly child of the US, poking their neighbours in the eye and stamping their feet. While the parent (the US) is trying to calm the situation and avoid a row between the parents.

Now we have a contradiction at the heart of the US policy. They want to avoid a war while at the same time thinking strategically how they could have war with Iran, take Iran out. Without upsetting the apple cart, using Israel’s plight as an excuse. Presumably they would whitewash the genocide of the Gazan people, as an unfortunate consequence of bigger goals. More important regional strategic interests and stability.

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities. — schopenhauer1

Funny how curiousity is then followed by a straw man as if your interlocutors are this stupid. Nobody has suggested returning occupied territories apart from a negotiated peace.

I don't agree with your assessment that the two state solution is dead. Or at least, we should make sure it isn't because the alternative will only happen when hell freezes over. I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept and the one-state certainly is also out of the question for the Zionists. There's also the issue of the right to return, which would immediately cause non-Jews to outnumber Jews. I think that would even give non-zionist Jews pause.

The two state solution can be implemented IF the international community demands extensive resettlement of illegal settlers out of the West Bank. It would be consistent with international law instead of rewarding this genocide by slow displacement.

I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept — Benkei

Based on what?

I don't agree with your assessment that the two state solution is dead. Or at least, we should make sure it isn't because the alternative will only happen when hell freezes over. I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept and the one-state certainly is also out of the question for the Zionists. There's also the issue of the right to return, which would immediately cause non-Jews to outnumber Jews. I think that would even give non-zionist Jews pause.

The two state solution can be implemented IF the international community demands extensive resettlement of illegal settlers out of the West Bank. It would be consistent with international law instead of rewarding this genocide by slow displacement. — Benkei

I don't think removing the illegal settlers is realistic, and this is the main problem. We're talking literally hundreds of thousands, many of whom are religious fanatics, and many of whom are armed - and they have used force against the IDF in the past.

Previous instances where Israel had to remove settlers, like in the Sinai and Gaza, were notoriously difficult and much smaller in scale.

How would you suggest this could be done?

I'm not even sure if removing the settlers is beneficial. Just as it is beneficial to have Arab-Israelis represent a sizeable part of the Israeli electorate, the same would be true for a Palestinian state. The minority element is a counterweight to radicalism and maximalist agendas. Of course, the settlers will want to be part of Israel, not a Palestinian state, but that's their problem.

Since when do we care what criminals think? Carte blanche to shoot them on sight.

Well, it seems to me that shooting people for having the audacity to think they have the right to live on the land they were born on is part of the problem, not the solution to it.

Some of these groups are nationalities, others are religions -- can one not question an ideology? Or should we just immediately accept it if it's a religion? I'm wary of any religion which seeks to convert the world to its creed. — BitconnectCarlos

Do not even attempt to find any logic in the racist/anti-racist narrative. There isn't any. For example being "white" is as changing as ever.

I'm no expert on Israeli politics, but Netanyahu, while certainly right wing, does not strike me as a religious extremist. I would question his level of observance/religious outlook and I do not group him in with e.g Kach although I understand the relationship between the two groups is nuanced and do share some common goals. — BitconnectCarlos

Likely he isn't. But just as he knows how to play the game with the Americans, so can he do with the religious fanatics. Yet once the administration itself depends on the participation of smaller parties, then you get into the bind that Bibi is in now.

I dislike comparisons between the IRA conflict with Britain and the Israel-Palestine conflict. When 1200 are murdered I'm fine with shelling. I'm fine with air strikes.

Catholics and Protestants are the same religion. — BitconnectCarlos

Stop here.

So just what you earlier said means that if the IRA had killed 1200, then you would have been totally OK with air strikes! Thus religion thus doesn't matter here. Hence if IRA had not just attempted to kill Thatcher by bombing a hotel in Brighton (which killed five and Thatcher narrowly escaped the assassination attempt), but would have gone bomb and collapsed the arena where the Conservative Party conference was staged and then also attacked and killed British soldiers, then according to you, it would have been an OK response to use the Royal Air Force to bomb villages that support IRA in Northern Ireland. Because likely killing all participating in the conference and some military garrisons could easily have gotten to that number that justifies for you starting a war.

Do you understand that your response can be the intent of the perpetrator? To provoke the government to shed it's legal limitations, go full berserk on the terrorists and hence increase the actual support for their cause. Because you genuinely think that using the Royal Air Force or the artillery of the British army in fighting the IRA would be a winning solution in Northern Ireland? You really think that would have cowed IRA supporters not to do anything anymore?

What would you think would have been the response by other European countries?

How do you think that the Irish had felt about your actions?

Actually, do you think that the British military leadership would have gone with your idea of artillery strikes and air strikes?

I think no. It would have been the most disastrous thing that the British and the British armed forces would have done!!! It would be just getting revenge for a shocked nation, yet digging further into the rabbit hole. And totally having no respect for laws and the rights of individuals.

Do note what Maggie did after the actual bombing: she continued the conference and declared: ""this attack has failed. All attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail."

if the IRA had killed 1200, then you would have been totally OK with air strikes — ssu

But it isn't just bombing.

The Hamas terrorists made it as personal and offensive as they could, exactly to provoke an oversized uncontrolled retaliatory counterattack., The purpose is to draw world sympathy away from the State of Israel and to direct sympathy to the Palestinian people who endure but still support Hamas. World outrage should be mobilized primarily against Hamas' barbarous acts but then also against the massive retaliatory strikes that surely must follow. The two are inextricably connected. While the hostages are still held there should be no peace for Gaza.

Israelis tell British MPs of evidence of Hamas sexual violence

The purpose is to draw world sympathy away from the State of Israel and to direct sympathy to the Palestinian people who endure but still support Hamas. — magritte

And I've stated from the start that then fight as the US did in Iraq. Do understand that killing a lot of civilians will refute and squash any victory you get from killing the terrorists. Stop with the genocidal rhetoric. The US would at the same time fight Sunni fighters and then take care of the civilian population. The saddest thing is that it actually beat the Al Qaeda, but then went away.

No, this isn't what is on mind of people. Revenge is in the mind of people. Make the Palestinians pay! They deserve it!

Nevermind it was the US President saying to Israel of not making the same mistakes as the US did after 9/11.

They could settle anywhere but in the occupied territories and they know it. It's wilful with the aim to make living conditions for Palestinians impossible and actually stealing land and destroying property. They're thugs and criminals that do not deserve the protection we accord citizens.