Israel

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

I think the answer was obvious. Bin Laden said that the siege of Beirut was a reason. I don't dispute that, so I have no idea whether it would have happened if it were not for that. 

Bin Laden cited about a dozen reasons for 9/11. Why are you so focused on one in particular? Would extremist Islamism exist without Israel?

Edited yesterday at 08:34 by hypochondriac

[egg]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Is not the United States the "Great Satan" ?

That's an Iranian thing, post revolution, as I understand it.

Is not the US support if Israel a factor in that? 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That's an Iranian thing, post revolution, as I understand it.

Is not the US support if Israel a factor in that? 

Do you think that the existence of Israel fuels Islamism?

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Bin Laden cited about a dozen reasons for 9/11. Why are you so focused on one in particular? Would extremist Islamism exist without Israel?

You're being obtuse. 

Bin Laden said that the siege of Beirut was a reason for 9/11. That's a fact. 

It's relevance is that the Gaza episode is that with bells on. 

If that was avenged years later, the chances are that Gaza will. 

It was not avenged by an immediate neighbour. Or a protagonist. 

The notion that Israel has, or can, bomb it's way to safety is as misguided as many of it's apparently well targeted bombs. 

I highly doubt that extreme Islamist behaviour against Jewish people and the supporters of Israeli wars and oppression would be as much of an issue if the Israeli state did not conduct itself as it does, and that the Palestinians had a free and independent state. 

 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That's an Iranian thing, post revolution, as I understand it.

Is not the US support if Israel a factor in that? 

And their support of Saudi Arabia.

All religions breed extremists, and they range from the bloke at Soap Box Corner in Hyde Park shouting "Jesus Saves" to bored dog walkers, through to people blowing themseves up in crowds to gain ready access to Paradise, with many and varied stages in between.

The existence of Israel is a goad to those wishing to provoke violence to boost their own ego/ power, but ultimately neither side will win by force.

[egg]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Do you think that the existence of Israel fuels Islamism?

If you mean Islamist extremism, yes, but it's more nuanced than that. There's the behaviour of Israel since creation. Do you agree the behaviour of Israel post 1948, and 1967, has fuelled extremism? 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, egg said:

 

I highly doubt that extreme Islamist behaviour against Jewish people and the supporters of Israeli wars and oppression would be as much of an issue if the Israeli state did not conduct itself as it does, and that the Palestinians had a free and independent state. 

 

More specifcally one branch of Israeli politics. But are not Israel's actions, at least in part, due to the attitudes and actions of some of it's neighbours, particularly Iran ?

Cause and effect are buried deep in historical mire.

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

If you mean Islamist extremism, yes, but it's more nuanced than that. There's the behaviour of Israel since creation. Do you agree the behaviour of Israel post 1948, and 1967, has fuelled extremism? 

Do you agree that the actions of Egypt, Syria, Iran, etc, at verious points since 1948, have caused Israel to act ? 

This is not a black and white picture.

[egg]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

More specifcally one branch of Israeli politics. But are not Israel's actions, at least in part, due to the attitudes and actions of some of it's neighbours, particularly Iran ?

Cause and effect are buried deep in historical mire.

It's exactly that, and where do you start. 

Some would argue that the cause was Israel. Others will point to Iranian support of terror groups. Others to the US for it's part in Iran. There's so many intertwined issues. For me, fundamentally, we need to address a 2 state solution, quickly. 

[whelk]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

You're being obtuse. 

Bin Laden said that the siege of Beirut was a reason for 9/11. That's a fact. 

It's relevance is that the Gaza episode is that with bells on. 

If that was avenged years later, the chances are that Gaza will. 

It was not avenged by an immediate neighbour. Or a protagonist. 

The notion that Israel has, or can, bomb it's way to safety is as misguided as many of it's apparently well targeted bombs. 

I highly doubt that extreme Islamist behaviour against Jewish people and the supporters of Israeli wars and oppression would be as much of an issue if the Israeli state did not conduct itself as it does, and that the Palestinians had a free and independent state. 

 

Do you honestly think if Al Q could have executed another 9/11 they would have done? Or do you believe that they said ok that’s it, we are equal now? Oh hang on now we have a reason, look at the Gaza situation 

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

For me, fundamentally, we need to address a 2 state solution, quickly. 

Yes. Acceptance thst Israel is not going away and the Palestinians need a secure guaranteed home. Easy on paper, but politics will always get in the way.

[egg]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

Do you honestly think if Al Q could have executed another 9/11 they would have done? Or do you believe that they said ok that’s it, we are equal now? Oh hang on now we have a reason, look at the Gaza situation 

Probably, yes.

Back to the issue, does anyone genuinely believe that Israeli behaviour over the past 2 years has made them, its people, and supporters safer? I don't just mean right now, and against large scale terror attacks. 

[Lighthouse]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

Probably, yes.

Back to the issue, does anyone genuinely believe that Israeli behaviour over the past 2 years has made them, its people, and supporters safer? I don't just mean right now, and against large scale terror attacks. 

Yes.

[whelk]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

Probably, yes.

Back to the issue, does anyone genuinely believe that Israeli behaviour over the past 2 years has made them, its people, and supporters safer? I don't just mean right now, and against large scale terror attacks. 

The fact that people hate you doesn’t endanger you if they have massively reduced capability. I don’t think terrorism is a volume thing. They flourish more from funding and unchecked sponsors. There will always be enough extremists and nothing will convince them otherwise. The fact that more may sympathise and say well what did you expect after your Gaza bombings is not directly endangering.

We have been over this ground many times. Nazi’s kill my dad. All my family now hate Nazis and vow revenge. They are rounded up and taken to a camp. 

The West often haven’t helped the situation with policies that have destabilised areas and left vacuums but these sorts are not easy to appease.

it is magnified in all areas of causes and politics and people are in entrenched positions and won’t come out of them whatever actions they see, or information they are given.

Edited yesterday at 09:30 by whelk

[hypochondriac]

46 minutes ago, whelk said:

The fact that people hate you doesn’t endanger you if they have massively reduced capability. I don’t think terrorism is a volume thing. They flourish more from funding and unchecked sponsors. There will always be enough extremists and nothing will convince them otherwise. The fact that more may sympathise and say well what did you expect after your Gaza bombings is not directly endangering.

We have been over this ground many times. Nazi’s kill my dad. All my family now hate Nazis and vow revenge. They are rounded up and taken to a camp. 

The West often haven’t helped the situation with policies that have destabilised areas and left vacuums but these sorts are not easy to appease.

it is magnified in all areas of causes and politics and people are in entrenched positions and won’t come out of them whatever actions they see, or information they are given.

This basically. Good post.

Edited yesterday at 10:15 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

52 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Yes.

Agreed. I think that Israel's actions will cause more people to hate them but it will also have meant that those same people will have less capability to do anything about it. 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

What action should they have taken to make them safer than they are now?

@egg would genuinely be interested in your answer.

[egg]

55 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

@egg would genuinely be interested in your answer.

I don't know, but the question isn't just about making Israel safer. It's about a solution to the wider issue.

Despite the sense of Whelks post, I remain of the view that Israel, it's people, it's supporters, and sadly Jewish people everywhere, are now more exposed. Choking Iran doesn't reduce the capability of crackpots doing what we saw on 9/11, Manchester recently, on the streets in Israel, etc. 

Part of the solution is 2 states. Both autonomous. Removal of oppression removes the need for resistance. People can't keep banging on about Palestinians not wanting Israel as a reason for Palestinians not having a state. Neither of them want the other, and indoctrinate their kids accordingly. The reality is that Israel is here to stay but that's no reason not to have a Palestine. Who governs it is also a factor to address, and we all agree it can't be Hamas. 

Israel can also establish an exclusion zone inside Israel, and properly police it to keep their people safe. 

Back to unanswered questions. What was your answer to who should "police" Gaza now if it's not to be Hamas? 

 

[AlexLaw76]

23 minutes ago, egg said:

 

Back to unanswered questions. What was your answer to who should "police" Gaza now if it's not to be Hamas? 

 

Only one group are able to do this 

 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Only one group are able to do this 

 

Ha!! I want to hear Hypo's answer as he doesn't think it can be Hamas. 

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Ha!! I want to hear Hypo's answer as he doesn't think it can be Hamas. 

There's no perfect answers but off the top of my head -Not Hamas and not an open-ended IDF occupation. A time-limited, Arab-led security mission under a UN mandate, paired with a Palestinian interim administration (PA-affiliated perhaps), and vetted Palestinian police doing day-to-day policing. Borders monitored by international/Egypt teams, with clear benchmarks.

[hypochondriac]

51 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't know, but the question isn't just about making Israel safer. It's about a solution to the wider issue.

Despite the sense of Whelks post, I remain of the view that Israel, it's people, it's supporters, and sadly Jewish people everywhere, are now more exposed. Choking Iran doesn't reduce the capability of crackpots doing what we saw on 9/11, Manchester recently, on the streets in Israel, etc. 

Part of the solution is 2 states. Both autonomous. Removal of oppression removes the need for resistance. People can't keep banging on about Palestinians not wanting Israel as a reason for Palestinians not having a state. Neither of them want the other, and indoctrinate their kids accordingly. The reality is that Israel is here to stay but that's no reason not to have a Palestine. Who governs it is also a factor to address, and we all agree it can't be Hamas. 

Israel can also establish an exclusion zone inside Israel, and properly police it to keep their people safe. 

Back to unanswered questions. What was your answer to who should "police" Gaza now if it's not to be Hamas? 

 

That says a lot. I don't think it's very credible to criticise the actions of Israel for making things less safe if you can't articulate in clear terms what realistic alternative actions they should have taken to make things safer.

Edited yesterday at 12:34 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

Supposedly from a letter found in Gaza written by Sinwar:

"If we are not ready to exploit the opportunity to the fullest, then the enemy will succeed in taking control of the turmoil and move to a counterattack or receive outside support, and then the situation will turn against us in the worst possible way. Therefore it is essential to be prepared for force flows, to develop the attack, expand it and reinforce to the maximum during the first six to ten hours in order to establish solid facts on the ground that will thwart any possibility of a counterattack."

It seems that Sinwar certainly didn't want Israel to be able to strike Gaza in the way they have. I expect he would have considered their operation overall to have been a failure. If he was around to see it.

[egg]

34 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

There's no perfect answers but off the top of my head -Not Hamas and not an open-ended IDF occupation. A time-limited, Arab-led security mission under a UN mandate, paired with a Palestinian interim administration (PA-affiliated perhaps), and vetted Palestinian police doing day-to-day policing. Borders monitored by international/Egypt teams, with clear benchmarks.

That's not possible right now, today. If not Hamas today, who? 

[egg]

32 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That says a lot. I don't think it's very credible to criticise the actions of Israel for making things less safe if you can't articulate in clear terms what realistic alternative actions they should have taken to make things safer.

That's nonsense. It's entirely credible, and frankly normal, to highlight the excessiveness of the Israeli actions, and to have the opinion that long term it exposes Israel, Israeli's, Israel's supporters, and alas Jews everywhere, to more risk. 

The issue with discussing with you is your focus exclusively on what you want it to be. That's 7/10 and preventing a recurrence. Your q's and comments don't go much beyond that, whereas the wider issue does. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

That's not possible right now, today. If not Hamas today, who? 

External security stays with the IDF, neighbourhood policing is done by vetted Palestinian civil police where they can operate, with UN cells and Egyptian/Jordanian officers embedded to keep humanitarian routes open.

You can probably begin the plan I outlined after about a month or so. The IDF and the new peacekeeping force that Blair is involved with should probably have been planning for this eventuality a while ago.

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

External security stays with the IDF, neighbourhood policing is done by vetted Palestinian civil police where they can operate, with UN cells and Egyptian/Jordanian officers embedded to keep humanitarian routes open.

You can probably begin the plan I outlined after about a month or so. The IDF and the new peacekeeping force that Blair is involved with should probably have been planning for this eventuality a while ago.

None of that's possible today. Right now it's Hamas in charge, so Hamas appointed people doing the policing. I'm not sure why you were/are surprised that's what's happening. 

Medium and longer term is a different issue and has yet to be worked out. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

That's nonsense. It's entirely credible, and frankly normal, to highlight the excessiveness of the Israeli actions, and to have the opinion that long term it exposes Israel, Israeli's, Israel's supporters, and alas Jews everywhere, to more risk. 

The issue with discussing with you is your focus exclusively on what you want it to be. That's 7/10 and preventing a recurrence. Your q's and comments don't go much beyond that, whereas the wider issue does. 

It's a familiar refrain from many people I have come across that are very critical of Israel. They are quite happy to say what Israel shouldn't be doing but haven't been able to articulate a realistic alternative for what they should have done instead that would have made them safer. Nowhere have I said that you can't criticise Israel or its actions.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

None of that's possible today. Right now it's Hamas in charge, so Hamas appointed people doing the policing. I'm not sure why you were/are surprised that's what's happening. 

Medium and longer term is a different issue and has yet to be worked out. 

That's your opinion not fact. Vetted Palestinian police already exist, UN deconfliction already runs, Egypt/Jordan liaisons are a phone call away. The only new piece is the Arab peacekeeping force, which is why it’s a month or so away.

[AlexLaw76]

Photo of the leaders who created the peace plan.

 

[inspectorfrost]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It's a familiar refrain from many people I have come across that are very critical of Israel. They are quite happy to say what Israel shouldn't be doing but haven't been able to articulate a realistic alternative for what they should have done instead that would have made them safer. Nowhere have I said that you can't criticise Israel or its actions.

They should have focused on going after Hamas and getting the hostages out. Netanyahu was booed by tens of thousands in Israel yesterday because he didn't do that.

What Netanyahu carried out was a genocidal campaign to kill or expel the Palestinians and carve up Gaza/the West Bank to satisfy religious extremists who prop him up to cling to power. As soon as he started talking about the latter Trump put a stop to it, and lo and behold an agreement to release the hostages suddenly appeared. (It helps that Trump is one hell of a negotiator, granted)

They should have conducted the military operation against Hamas with an eye on protecting civilians, and met their international obligations with regards to the civilian population.

What they did was hire "US merceneries" to shoot starving Palestinians dead at 'aid distribution centres', (according this they murdered more than double the number of Israelis who died in the October terror attacks). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Gaza_Strip_aid_distribution_killings

To paraphrase an interview with Dr Nick Maynard about the GHF, "on monday they shot them in their heads, tuesday in their chests, wednesday in their stomachs, thursday in their groins, it's a game to them"

That isn't going after Hamas or getting the hostages out.

That's amongst the reasons why Netanyahu is wanted by the ICC criminal court (along with Putin and members of the Hamas leadership)

Previous Israeli governments would have responded and conducted the (fully justified) military response against Hamas entirely differently

 

[AlexLaw76]

All the Israelis and the Russians have to do is simply not recognise the ICC, then there we go.

 

[rallyboy]

Now that Trump has brought peace to the region, when does Netanyahu's corruption trial resume?

And if convicted, will he go straight onto his war crimes trial, or does he get a break in between?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, rallyboy said:

Now that Trump has brought peace to the region, when does Netanyahu's corruption trial resume?

And if convicted, will he go straight onto his war crimes trial, or does he get a break in between?

If he does not recognise the ICC?

there is a reason the USA don’t, and refuse to.

if he does, should be stood next to Blair in the dock 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, inspectorfrost said:

They should have focused on going after Hamas and getting the hostages out. Netanyahu was booed by tens of thousands in Israel yesterday because he didn't do that.

What Netanyahu carried out was a genocidal campaign to kill or expel the Palestinians and carve up Gaza/the West Bank to satisfy religious extremists who prop him up to cling to power. As soon as he started talking about the latter Trump put a stop to it, and lo and behold an agreement to release the hostages suddenly appeared. (It helps that Trump is one hell of a negotiator, granted)

They should have conducted the military operation against Hamas with an eye on protecting civilians, and met their international obligations with regards to the civilian population.

What they did was hire "US merceneries" to shoot starving Palestinians dead at 'aid distribution centres', (according this they murdered more than double the number of Israelis who died in the October terror attacks). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Gaza_Strip_aid_distribution_killings

To paraphrase an interview with Dr Nick Maynard about the GHF, "on monday they shot them in their heads, tuesday in their chests, wednesday in their stomachs, thursday in their groins, it's a game to them"

That isn't going after Hamas or getting the hostages out.

That's amongst the reasons why Netanyahu is wanted by the ICC criminal court (along with Putin and members of the Hamas leadership)

Previous Israeli governments would have responded and conducted the (fully justified) military response against Hamas entirely differently

 

Thanks for the response which is a better one than "I don't know."

I think you’re mixing a few different things there. Yes, Netanyahu’s handling of the war has been heavily criticised — even by many Israelis — and it’s clear that the campaign has caused immense suffering in Gaza. But that doesn’t mean there was an obvious, workable alternative that would have achieved the goals of eliminating or weakening Hamas, rescuing the hostages and making Israel safer in the short to medium term at least.

Saying “they should have gone after Hamas and protected civilians” is easy in theory, but Hamas deliberately embedded itself among civilians, used hospitals and schools, and operated from tunnels under residential areas. Any military response was always going to risk civilian casualties — tragic but that’s the brutal reality of asymmetric warfare, not necessarily evidence of genocidal intent.

As for the claim about “US mercenaries” and “shooting starving Palestinians dead for sport”, as far as I am aware those reports are disputed.  Quoting one doctor’s emotional account doesn’t make it an established fact.

I’m not defending Netanyahu personally — he’s been divisive inside Israel and may well face accountability for his leadership. But my point still stands: critics often describe what Israel shouldn’t have done, yet when pressed for a realistic plan that would have dismantled Hamas, rescued the hostages, and prevented another October 7th without significant force, I haven't seen much.

[Turkish]

"most of the world are acknowledging this is a triumph for Donald Trump"

"President Trump and his team deserve huge amounts of credit"

Were quotes just said on TV but the presenter and a former hostage negotiator

Apart from on here it seems.

[egg]

18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

"most of the world are acknowledging this is a triumph for Donald Trump"

"President Trump and his team deserve huge amounts of credit"

Were quotes just said on TV but the presenter and a former hostage negotiator

Apart from on here it seems.

Everyone has acknowledged that he deserves credit. 

Others note that it's not him who has made concessions on behalf of his people, or got his hands dirty in the negotiations. 

In a mediation, the people who deserve the most credit are the protagonists and the mediators, not the bloke who tells them that they need to sort it out or things will get worse. 

[whelk]

14 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Photo of the leaders who created the peace plan.

 

Although the US (Witkoff) has acknowledged that UK played a key role in the negotiations

Edited 7 hours ago by whelk

[whelk]

49 minutes ago, Turkish said:

"most of the world are acknowledging this is a triumph for Donald Trump"

"President Trump and his team deserve huge amounts of credit"

Were quotes just said on TV but the presenter and a former hostage negotiator

Apart from on here it seems.

There is the element of him not being the predictable diplomat that no doubt does help in such situations

[hypochondriac]

55 minutes ago, Turkish said:

"most of the world are acknowledging this is a triumph for Donald Trump"

"President Trump and his team deserve huge amounts of credit"

Were quotes just said on TV but the presenter and a former hostage negotiator

Apart from on here it seems.

Any president could have ended things at any time apparently.

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Any president could have ended things at any time apparently.

Bit like how any manager could do what Fergie did at Man United, even Alan Pardew would win the league there. Was the famous quote.

[Turkish]

39 minutes ago, egg said:

Everyone has acknowledged that he deserves credit. 

Others note that it's not him who has made concessions on behalf of his people, or got his hands dirty in the negotiations. 

In a mediation, the people who deserve the most credit are the protagonists and the mediators, not the bloke who tells them that they need to sort it out or things will get worse. 

Are you sure about that? 

 

[sadoldgit]

Great news about the release of the remaining hostages. At some point the question needs to be asked why it took so long. Perhaps, if Netanyahu had put the same effort into securing their release as he did into killing Palestinians and destroying Gaza, they would have been home a lot sooner. Still, today is a day of celebration and hope that the ceasefire can be turned into an actual peace settlement that works for all.

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Great news about the release of the remaining hostages. At some point the question needs to be asked why it took so long. Perhaps, if Netanyahu had put the same effort into securing their release as he did into killing Palestinians and destroying Gaza, they would have been home a lot sooner. Still, today is a day of celebration and hope that the ceasefire can be turned into an actual peace settlement that works for all.

I know what you mean about the time taken. Next time, maybe don’t take hostages or return them pretty quickly. 
 

Well done to Trump though , yes?

Edited 6 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Great news about the release of the remaining hostages. At some point the question needs to be asked why it took so long. Perhaps, if Netanyahu had put the same effort into securing their release as he did into killing Palestinians and destroying Gaza, they would have been home a lot sooner. Still, today is a day of celebration and hope that the ceasefire can be turned into an actual peace settlement that works for all.

I'm going to be controversial here and blame the guys who actually took the hostages.

[egg]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I know what you mean about the time taken. Next time, maybe don’t take hostages or return them pretty quickly. 
 

Well done to Trump though , yes?

There are some reports today that Hamas offered to return them previously (albeit on an exchange for Palestinian detainees basis) but were knocked back. 

That all said, yep, they should never have been taken. Fortunately the last 20 are now out, and can hopefully rebuild their lives. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

There is the element of him not being the predictable diplomat that no doubt does help in such situations

A Nobel peace prize nomination for being an unpredictable loon would probably be a first. 

But yep, knowing that even he doesn't know what he's going to do next carries clout. 

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Although the US (Witkoff) has acknowledged that UK played a key role in the negotiations

UK played 'vital role' in Gaza peace deal, says Trump aide, after minister branded 'delusional' | Politics News | Sky News

[rallyboy]

16 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

If he does not recognise the ICC?

there is a reason the USA don’t, and refuse to.

if he does, should be stood next to Blair in the dock 

Netanyahu's corruption trial is nothing to do with the ICC, and criminals don't get to choose whether they recognise law.

 

On a positive note, Trump and his team have done an incredible job driving through the hostage release, an outcome that seemed unlikely a month ago, with the UK playing a key role.

Now let's hope Trump can get both sides to continue towards the two state solution that is the only answer for long term stability and doesn't let himself get sidetracked by building contracts or lobbying. 

[hypochondriac]

38 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Netanyahu's corruption trial is nothing to do with the ICC, and criminals don't get to choose whether they recognise law.

 

On a positive note, Trump and his team have done an incredible job driving through the hostage release, an outcome that seemed unlikely a month ago, with the UK playing a key role.

Now let's hope Trump can get both sides to continue towards the two state solution that is the only answer for long term stability and doesn't let himself get sidetracked by building contracts or lobbying. 

Good post that. I agree.