Hamas attacks Israel.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No. Hamas argues Israel shouldn't exist. Their problem is not what Israel is doing but the fact that it is a secular state in the Holy Land.

Nope - your ignorance is astounding given the amount of available information on the internet.

In 1987, shortly after the outbreak of the First Intifada against Israel, Hamas was founded by Palestinian imam and activist Ahmed Yassin. It emerged out of his Mujama al-Islamiya, which had been established in Gaza in 1973 as a religious charity involved with the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

According to Mubarak Awad, a Palestinian American clinical psychologist, the Intifada was a protest against Israeli repression including "beatings, shootings, killings, house demolitions, uprooting of trees, deportations, extended imprisonments, and detentions without trial"

Israeli minister of Economics and Finance, Gad Ya'acobi, stated that "a creeping process of de facto annexation" contributed to a growing militancy in Palestinian society.

Hamas's first strike against Israel came in the spring 1989 as it abducted and killed Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon, two Israeli soldiers.

On 8 October 1990, 22 Palestinians were killed by Israeli police during the 1990 Temple Mount killings at Al-Aqsa. Anger following the al-Aqsa massacre in October 1990 in which Muslim worshippers had tried to prevent Jewish extremists from placing a foundation stone for the Third Temple on the Temple Mount and Israeli police used live fire against Palestinians in the Al-Aqsa compound, killing 17 and caused Hamas to intensify its campaign of abductions. Hamas declared every Israeli soldier a target[107] and called for a "jihad against the Zionist enemy everywhere, in all fronts and every means."[108]

If you want the history:

During the 1980s a number of mainstream Israeli politicians referred to policies of transferring the Palestinian population out of the territories leading to Palestinian fears that Israel planned to evict them. Public statements calling for transfer of the Palestinian population were made by Deputy Defense minister Michael Dekel, Cabinet Minister Mordechai Tzipori and government Minister Yosef Shapira among others.[34] Describing the causes of the Intifada, Benny Morris [Israeli historian] refers to the "all-pervading element of humiliation", caused by the protracted occupation which he says was "always a brutal and mortifying experience for the occupied" and was "founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation, and manipulation"

The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that "23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the Intifada", one third of whom were children under the age of ten years.[74]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That would be great, but I can't see it happening.
A solution that stops all the killing from both sides would be a start, I think.

I can think of one realistic option, but I don't think it would work.

Which is what?

Have you got a solution? It's OK to say no. I don't think there is a workable one.

Yes. There have been lots of conflicts in the world and eventually some measure of peace - any international response doesn't need to perfect. The international community acted decisively in relation to Russia and the result is by no means perfect and we certainly don't have peace but it's better than the alternative.

My solution is applying international pressure on Israel to dismantle its illegal settlements, and establishment of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state which includes water aquifers  i.e. Palestinian autonomy rather than Israel having control of airspace, borders, water rights, building of infrastructure etc in the Palestinian territories. And my solution is following international law on the right of return of refugees and restitution of property.

It's not considered racism when people criticise other countries for their actions such as Saudi's actions in Yemen or Russia's actions in Ukraine, so it's not antisemitism to hold Israel to the same standards. People who suffered abuse are still held accountable for their abuse of others.

US aid to Israel is pointless and just encourages Israel to flout international law leading to more terrorism in response from the people Israel is oppressing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/22/opinion/israel-military-aid.html

[Nearly Sane]

Ffs!


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/at-least-500-people-killed-in-hospital-bombing-in-gaza-palestinian-officials-claim/ar-AA1inmIj

Israel denying responsibility


https://www.nsnews.com/world-news/israel-denies-involvement-in-gaza-hospital-blast-says-explosion-caused-by-palestinian-rocket-7693430

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It's not arbitrary. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that targets civilians. Israel is a nation state that targets terrorists but doesn't care when Palestinian civilians are in the way. They commit war crimes but that doesn't make them terrorists. Your use of the language is deliberately emotive and it doesn't help people to evaluate the situation.

I am using language as it is used in international law - if you feel emotional about the word "terrorism" by the Israeli state, I guess that means you're human and have empathy, which is a useful thing to have when evaluating situations of armed conflict. So I disagree that it doesn't help people evaluate situations.

Your attempt at making a distinction between terrorism and war crimes in this situation doesn't work.

State violence used to inflict fear in an audience beyond the immediate victims is state terrorism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264715825_State_Violence_as_State_Terrorism

State  terrorism
“Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population” is a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflict. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/apii-1977/article-13

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Are you saying that when you said it was 'impossible', it was merely you expressing an opinion about what you think in this specific circumstance. I was pointing out that a peace has happened without it. That is in no sense claiming that the 2 situations are exactly the same.

Of course it was this specific situation since there isn't a one-size-fits-all plan for peace in all conflicts. It obviously depends on the specific circumstances and causes of each conflict.

If the circumstances of the conflict don't involve a brutalised people losing their empathy and humanity and forming a state by taking over someone else's land and trying to ethnically cleanse the inhabitants, then restitution won't necessarily be as important for achieving peace. State repression of civilians using all the state's considerable resources including the military is one of the causes of terrorism.

Terrorism becomes necessary to exert pressure and make the human cost of military occupation unbearable. Especially where the international community that is arming and funding the occupiers are unwilling to exert diplomatic or economic pressure on the occupiers to observe the civil rights of the occupied and end the occupation. The resulting bloodshed in NI is what led to the more just process of power-sharing. So terrorism eventually yields results.

The only alternative to terrorism, for civilians with limited access to weapons in order to exert pressure on trained military occupiers with superior fire-power who refuse to negotiate, is the route taken by Gandhi and Mandela and Dr Martin Luther King. As I said before, not everyone can be a Gandhi or Mandela or King - they are very rare in these type of conflicts of racist repression and occupation. The Zionists don't seem to have had a Gandhi or Mandela or King after they were brutalised by European racism. If you want to pretend terrorism doesn't have a cause, that's up to you. I don't share your particular delusion in this area.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it was this specific situation since there isn't a one-size-fits-all plan for peace in all conflicts. It obviously depends on the specific circumstances and causes of each conflict...

Ah, I see. It would appear that in order to give ypur desire for what you want to happen, you attempted it to give it a patina of objectivity by writing 'is that peace is impossible without justice and restitution as required by international law', and then going on to list what you would demand. It would be possible to get a mirrored answer for someone partisan to Israel's demands, and so neither seems realistic as a solution.


I doubt that anyone could detail a settlement that would be something that would succeed as such a thing cpuld only come about through a complex of compromises that is ever changing based on events. Until both sides are willing to put the safety of people above the satisfaction of past grievances, i fear that it will not happen.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ah, I see. It would appear that in order to give ypur desire for what you want to happen, you attempted it to give it a patina of objectivity by writing 'is that peace is impossible without justice and restitution as required by international law', and then going on to list what you would demand. It would be possible to get a mirrored answer for someone partisan to Israel's demands, and so neither seems realistic as a solution.


I doubt that anyone could detail a settlement that would be something that would succeed as such a thing cpuld only come about through a complex of compromises that is ever changing based on events. Until both sides are willing to put the safety of people above the satisfaction of past grievances, i fear that it will not happen.

Well of course it is my opinion. There isn't some objective solution, standard or formula on how to achieve peace in the real world. A realistic solution is one that the international community can persuade both sides to accept and abide by, and no one has a crystal ball to know whether that solution will be derailed in the future because it is dependent on the future actions of future parties in the conflict e.g the NI peace process did not envisage a Brexit.

I was only ever asked for my position and my opinion on a solution and I responded that I would give my opinion (see below).  In my opinion "peace is impossible....etc". I just didn't think I needed to state IMO before each sentence I write as it's obvious that I'm being asked for my opinion, since that is all anyone can have, including you - an opinion.

Whatever you think I am doing is just your vivid imagination...or as you would put it "your bias is getting in the way of your comprehension" or you've been drinking and are feeling argumentative  - not sure which. How drunk do you need to get before you start telling me I am justifying murdering babies?

Reply #114

What do you think is the solution then? How are we going to end all the killing?

Reply #116

Before I give my opinion on steps Israelis and Palestinians can take to end the cycle of violence...

Reply #121

Do you want a solution that is morally right i.e. it is consistent regardless of race and has been applied to many refugees across the world under international law, or are you looking for a solution that favours the Israelis and discriminates against Palestinians because you think Israel is not required to follow international law or be held to the same standards as other countries?

Reply #127

I personally don't know what position you hold.
I also don't know what solution you would propose to solve, as much as it could possibly be solved, the ending of the cycle of violence.

Could you enlighten?

[Nearly Sane]

'US President Joe Biden has arrived in Israel to express his solidarity and discuss war plans with its leaders.' Obviously it's just the BBC report but it will have been influenced by the briefing from the White House. Nothing about the civilians in Gaza, nothing about whether the actions of Israel are questionable? Ffs!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67142031

[jeremyp]

False dichotomy. Hamas has and does argue that its actions are provoked by Israel's.

The point is that, if Israel stopped what it is doing to defend itself, it wouldn't be satisfactory for Hamas. They want Israel gone and they say the only way to do this is Jihad.

[jeremyp]

Nope - your ignorance is astounding given the amount of available information on the internet.

The Hamas charter is available on the Internet. It says exactly what I claim their motives are.

They have rejected several peace deals over the years, probably because they all involved Israel continuing to exist.

They gained power in Gaza by winning elections in 2006 and then abolished elections.

These are not nice people and you shouldn't be defending them.

[jeremyp]

I am using language as it is used in international law - if you feel emotional about the word "terrorism" by the Israeli state, I guess that means you're human and have empathy, which is a useful thing to have when evaluating situations of armed conflict. So I disagree that it doesn't help people evaluate situations.

International law does not automatically designate states as terrorist if they have committed war crimes.

Israel is not a terrorist state.

[jeremyp]

Israel denying responsibility


https://www.nsnews.com/world-news/israel-denies-involvement-in-gaza-hospital-blast-says-explosion-caused-by-palestinian-rocket-7693430

Joe Biden says it was Hamas that destroyed the hospital in Gaza.

[Nearly Sane]

The point is that, if Israel stopped what it is doing to defend itself, it wouldn't be satisfactory for Hamas. They want Israel gone and they say the only way to do this is Jihad.

'Defend itself' does not equal 'war crimes'. If you want to complain about people using 'emotive' language, playing down Israel's actions is disingenuous.

[jeremyp]

'Defend itself' does not equal 'war crimes'. If you want to complain about people using 'emotive' language, playing down Israel's actions is disingenuous.

"Defending itself" is not factually wrong. "Terrorist state" is factually wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

"Defending itself" is not factually wrong. "Terrorist state" is factually wrong.

Using terrorism would not be factually wrong. You and Gabriella can continue your approach of 'they started it'. It seems likely to continue to have children being murdered while you indulge in a pointless blame game.

[jeremyp]

Using terrorism would not be factually wrong.

Yes it would. You can claim Israel has committed war crimes but it is factually wrong to call them terrorism.

You and Gabriella can continue your approach of 'they started it'. It seems likely to continue to have children being murdered while you indulge in a pointless blame game.

Why do you say "you"? You are indulging in it too. But it doesn't matter because none of us have a solution and we can't stop what is happening. If there was something we could actually do, then it would be wrong of us to argue about who started it instead of doing the thing, but I don't have a solution and nobody else here has put one forward.

On the other hand, any successful solution will take into account who started it and why.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes it would. You can claim Israel has committed war crimes but it is factually wrong to call them terrorism.

Why do you say "you"? You are indulging in it too. But it doesn't matter because none of us have a solution and we can't stop what is happening. If there was something we could actually do, then it would be wrong of us to argue about who started it instead of doing the thing, but I don't have a solution and nobody else here has put one forward.

On the other hand, any successful solution will take into account who started it and why.

Am I indulging in a blame game? The difference is that I don't think you get to a who started it here. Both the Hamas  terrorist attacks and the Israeli war crimes ars heinous but the solution won't be about that. If you stick to your and Gabriella's mirror position, you'll just keep the slaughter going.

As already covered in reply to Gabriella, the peace we have in Northern Ireland has only come about by not seeking recriminations and blame.

As to your diffentiation between terrorism and war crines, tell what the substantive difference is to people who are being starved because of Israel's actions?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The Hamas charter is available on the Internet. It says exactly what I claim their motives are.

We covered this in reply #20 on this thread. Your own link to the Hamas charter said:

The 2017 charter accepted for the first time the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.....

Hamas’ 2006 election manifesto dropped any mention of the destruction of Israel, stating ambiguously instead that it wanted to contribute to "the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem.”

They have rejected several peace deals over the years, probably because they all involved Israel continuing to exist.

Except what about this offer of a Hamas ceasefire: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-said-to-offer-israel-long-term-ceasefire-in-gaza-report/

They gained power in Gaza by winning elections in 2006 and then abolished elections.

You seem to have left out quite a sizeable chunk of information in that assertion.

E.g. Israel's campaign of arrests of PLC and Hamas candidates to obstruct the election.

E.g. Fatah's US -backed attempt at a coup once Hamas won the elections.

Vanity Fair obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America's behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)

David Wurmser, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief Middle East adviser a month after the Hamas takeover, said he believed that Hamas had no intention of taking over the Gaza Strip until Fatah forced its hand. "It looks to me that what happened wasn't so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was preempted before it could happen," he was quoted as saying. https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Vanity-Fair-Bush-approved-plot-to-oust-Hamas

These are not nice people and you shouldn't be defending them.

How does not discussing it help because I can just say the same to you - the right-wing nationalist Israeli government are not nice people and you shouldn't be defending them. There was mass civil protest against Netanyahu just before the latest Hamas terrorist attack.

Besides, as I have repeatedly stated on here I am not defending Hamas or the Israeli government as neither of them are nice. They are both committing terrorist acts as both sides are attacking civilians and the international community should put pressure on both to stop.

I am just recognising that terrorism won't stop if the Israeli government repression of Palestinians and Israeli settlements continues in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

But I don't think Israel wants/ expects peace - based on Ben Gurion's statements I linked to earlier, this terrorism / war of attrition seemed to be what Israel expected and signed up to as the price worth paying to achieve their Zionist political aims. They have adopted a "mow the grass" policy even if that means some of their own civilians die and they kill Palestinian civilians in the process.

[jeremyp]

Am I indulging in a blame game? The difference is that I don't think you get to a who started it here. Both the Hamas  terrorist attacks and the Israeli war crimes ars heinous but the solution won't be about that. If you stick to your and Gabriella's mirror position, you'll just keep the slaughter going.

Hamas wants Israel erased from the face of the Earth. What's your solution to that?

As already covered in reply to Gabriella, the peace we have in Northern Ireland has only come about by not seeking recriminations and blame.

I think there are a number of reasons why Northern Ireland peace came about. It required both sides to understand that the violence would never solve anything and it would stop if everybody just made a few concessions. Hamas has never got to that realisation. There have been a number of attempted peace settlements and Hamas has always rejected them. I'm not saying it won't work at some point in the future, but Israel isn't the problem at the moment.

As to your diffentiation between terrorism and war crines, tell what the substantive difference is to people who are being starved because of Israel's actions?

Hamas and Israel are not equivalently awful.  Hamas deliberately targets civilian communities. Israel does not, except when Hamas terrorists are concealing themselves in them. Israel tries to justify its actions by claiming they are defending their country against proper that murder their citizens. Hamas tried to justify its actions by claiming Israel should not exist.

Both sides are not the same.

[Nearly Sane]

Hamas wants Israel erased from the face of the Earth. What's your solution to that?
I think there are a number of reasons why Northern Ireland peace came about. It required both sides to understand that the violence would never solve anything and it would stop if everybody just made a few concessions. Hamas has never got to that realisation. There have been a number of attempted peace settlements and Hamas has always rejected them. I'm not saying it won't work at some point in the future, but Israel isn't the problem at the moment.
Hamas and Israel are not equivalently awful.  Hamas deliberately targets civilian communities. Israel does not, except when Hamas terrorists are concealing themselves in them. Israel tries to justify its actions by claiming they are defending their country against proper that murder their citizens. Hamas tried to justify its actions by claiming Israel should not exist.

Both sides are not the same.

I'll leave you and Gabriella to continue with but my side murders children in the 'good way' approach which will merely ensure the continued murdering of children.

(And before anyone wants to question my sobriety for that interpretation, stone cold sober looking for bottles of love)

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

International law does not automatically designate states as terrorist if they have committed war crimes.

Israel is not a terrorist state.

I did not say Israel has been designated a terrorist state by international law, since there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism in international law as one person's terrorism is someone else's act to achieve de-colonisation / freedom from state repression.

It's been left up to each individual government to designate who is a terrorist based on their own political considerations and who they consider their allies and enemies.

I agreed that Hamas are terrorists. I said Israel's actions in my opinion (and the opinions of some others I have read) also amounted to terrorism because its aim was to terrorise the civilian population and I linked to Article 13 of the Geneva Convention on Protection of the Civilian Population, and quoted the relevant bit "primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population". The intent looks like Israel's terrorism of a civilian population in the absence of any serious attempt to get the civilian population of Gaza out of harm's way from Israeli airstrikes.

The number of dead and wounded Palestinian civilians including children shows there was nowhere for civilians to go without being bombed by Israeli airstrikes, there wasn't sufficient space in other parts of Gaza to accommodate them, they couldn't leave Gaza as the border crossings were closed, Israel did not give civilians sufficient time to evacuate, sick and injured people can't evacuate, and Israel's siege of Gaza meant there was not enough food, fuel, water, medicine for people to travel anywhere even if there was somewhere to go without getting killed or injured by an Israeli airstrike in the process. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'll leave you and Gabriella to continue with but my side murders children in the 'good way' approach which will merely ensure the continued murdering of children.

(And before anyone wants to question my sobriety for that interpretation, stone cold sober looking for bottles of love)

Who are my side in any of this? You make assertions without linking to evidence of me supporting Hamas or Israeli terrorism. Your assertion is really odd coming from someone who stated on here that it was ok to murder babies. 

We've had an extended thread 'Searching for God' on cause and effect and nature/ nurture and how our decisions are determined so it's fairly well established that actions have causes. Exploring and recognising those causes isn't the same as endorsing them. I, like the other posters on here, live relatively safe and sound in a city far away from the effects of terrorism by Israel or Hamas in comparison to the people in Israel or Gaza or the West Bank. So my nature/ nurture response is not to support Hamas terrorism just because I am Muslim. My response is going to be different to someone who is actually living through Israeli/ Hamas terrorism in Israel / Gaza/ the West Bank. Which part of that are you finding difficulty comprehending whether due to alcohol or just plain bias?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hamas wants Israel erased from the face of the Earth. What's your solution to that?

Evidence for your belief? We covered this in reply #20 on this thread. Your own link to the Hamas charter said:

The 2017 charter accepted for the first time the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.....

Hamas’ 2006 election manifesto dropped any mention of the destruction of Israel, stating ambiguously instead that it wanted to contribute to "the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem.”

I think there are a number of reasons why Northern Ireland peace came about. It required both sides to understand that the violence would never solve anything and it would stop if everybody just made a few concessions. Hamas has never got to that realisation.

Your own link to the Hamas charter said:

The 2017 charter accepted for the first time the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.....

There have been a number of attempted peace settlements and Hamas has always rejected them. I'm not saying it won't work at some point in the future, but Israel isn't the problem at the moment.

You haven't addressed any of the evidence on here that undermines your belief and you haven't presented evidence to support your belief. I get you really, really want to believe that Israel is not the problem but some evidence to support that belief that Israel is not the problem would be nice. 

Hamas and Israel are not equivalently awful.  Hamas deliberately targets civilian communities. Israel does not, except when Hamas terrorists are concealing themselves in them. Israel tries to justify its actions by claiming they are defending their country against proper that murder their citizens. Hamas tried to justify its actions by claiming Israel should not exist.

Both sides are not the same.

Given the amount of murdering of Palestinian civilians that Israel was doing before Hamas even came into existence, the "defending itself" argument doesn't work. Israel has been deliberately targeting civilians from the time it ethnically cleansed Palestinian civilians who were the wrong faith/ race from their villages and land as part of the creation of its Jewish state. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Your assertion is really odd coming from someone who stated on here that it was ok to murder babies.

Why are you still lying about that?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Why are you still lying about that?

BHS - and why are you lying about me lying?