Hamas attacks Israel.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Spud,

Here’s VG (Reply 64):

That’s sounds like an implied justification to me. You obviously think differently.

And that you and NS would interpret it that way sounds like your bias and bigotry against Palestinians/ Muslim posters to me.

I’ll just repeat my previous question to you:

Despite your Distinction [for S Level English] you appear to not know what the word "justifies" means. Please define what you think "justifies" means and quote where I justified Hamas murdering Israeli families.

I’ll help you out:

Justified: having or shown to have a just, right, or reasonable basis.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/justified

Over to you or NS to explain how saying that I am not surprised that nature/ nurture could lead to extreme (furthest points from the norm) reactions means that I am saying the extreme reactions are just, right or reasonable.

Sounds like you think that there are other factors that influence human behaviour other than nature/ nurture - in which case please set out your logical reasoned explanation for what you think those other factors are.

Presumably, based on your contributions to the ‘Searching for God’ thread, you agree that Hamas’s terrorism against Israel’s illegal occupation, oppression and apartheid towards Palestinian civilians were determined by past events…or do you think they were random?

I described Hamas’ reaction as “extreme”, and differentiated them from the restraint shown by most Palestinians in the face of Israeli collective punishment, occupation and racism. And I contrasted it to extreme noble reactions on the other side of the ‘normal’ such as Gandhi’s non-violence in the face of violent colonial oppression and Mandela’s willingness for reconciliation despite being imprisoned for 27 years under an apartheid regime.

Now rather than inanely stating your beliefs or opinions how about you or NS show your reasoning and hopefully as part of your answer you will reference an English dictionary.

[SteveH]

Referring to a dictionary isn't as conclusive as you seem to think, since modern dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Could we possibly drop this sterile debate about semantics, and get back to discussing the Hamas-Israel war?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Referring to a dictionary isn't as conclusive as you seem to think, since modern dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Could we possibly drop this sterile debate about semantics, and get back to discussing the Hamas-Israel war?

Ok. I didn’t think dictionaries were conclusive but they would give some indication that BHS and NS were doing something more than just guessing based on their unevidenced beliefs and bias.

Let’s focus on the situation in Gaza and Israel.

[Nearly Sane]

Referring to a dictionary isn't as conclusive as you seem to think, since modern dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Could we possibly drop this sterile debate about semantics, and get back to discussing the Hamas-Israel war?

While I agree with you, I am struck by the difficulty of the word 'glorify' in the link below. What amounts to glorification? And even if it does amount to it should it be an offence?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67100274

[Spud]

Spud,

Here’s VG (Reply 64):

That’s sounds like an implied justification to me. You obviously think differently.

If someone said as a warning, "given that some people are much less restrained in the face of oppression than others, we can expect an extreme reaction from Hamas at some point" that would be in no way justifying such reactions; it is Hamas that thinks its actions are justified, not the person issuing the warning.

[Nearly Sane]

Be interested to see what reaction this gets in the US republican race for President.

And here is the start. This could be the decisive topic in their choice.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67101887

[SteveH]

And here is the start. This could be the decisive topic in their choice.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67101887

We can always rely on the orange ogre to say the wrong thing.

[Nearly Sane]

We can always rely on the orange ogre to say the wrong thing.

There's always been a split on the US right between their isolationism and their support for the Israeli govt which has complex roots. I think DeSantis and Pence are in the mainstream for the party but Trump has the ability to unite 2 different strains of opinion in the party on this, including the ones that want to see Armageddon.

[Nearly Sane]

Murdered


https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/14/over-70-killed-after-israeli-strikes-hit-civilians-fleeing-gaza-19662650/

[Nearly Sane]

Good programme today on Sunday with Victoria Derbyshire (rather than Laura Kuenssberg). Both James Cleverly and David Lammy were keen to avoid any answers about whether Israel's actions were against international law. For Cleverly, that's because he's not a lawyer - yeah, but you're the fecking Home Secretary. Lammy, being a lawyer, couldn't use that one, so opted for not a international human rights lawyer.

Humza Yousaf came across well on this. Given his in-laws are trapped in Gaza, it is not surprising that he has a clear perspective.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001rkx6/sunday-with-laura-kuenssberg-15102023

[Nearly Sane]

Patrick Kielty on The Late Late Show

https://youtu.be/zpYr3o10mmY?si=MlBNMvazKYNCCA6e

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If someone said as a warning, "given that some people are much less restrained in the face of oppression than others, we can expect an extreme reaction from Hamas at some point" that would be in no way justifying such reactions; it is Hamas that thinks its actions are justified, not the person issuing the warning.

Israel's increased collective punishment of civilians since 2019 - killing civilians including children with air strikes, increased restrictions on travel by Palestinians from the open air prison of Gaza, restricting electricity and food and medicines plus demolishing Palestinian homes in the West Bank and stealing more land and expanding settlements was going to provoke an extreme reaction from one or more militant groups.

Israel-Gaza clash: Why Hamas chose restraint https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50458141

Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, expected Arab terrorism in response to Israel stealing Arab land. To paraphrase Ben Gurion's words - steal land, expect terrorism in response but dead Israelis is a price worth paying to secure Zionist goals.

Of course posters with a colonial mindset like NS, or political opportunists in the Tory and Labour parties will be outraged by the idea that colonists could be massacred by the natives for stealing their land and will absolve the colonists of responsibility for the massacre.

Given what has happened throughout history, non-racists are not that surprised by Hamas murdering civilians, and condemn the Israeli government and Hamas for the murder of the Israeli citizens.

I see many supporters of Israel are lying on TV and on LBC - they seem to have been given a script to follow to push their propaganda - some are still repeating the lies about babies being beheaded even though this claim has been discredited and then continuing with a rehearsed script of further lies to justify their actions.

When asked why Israel was breaking international law and cutting off water, food and electricity to an entire civilian population they seem to admit that breaking international law can be justified against an evil enemy. That's the same argument that Hamas uses - so Israel is just as bad as Hamas, except Israel kills more civilians than Hamas does.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The Israeli government had no intention of negotiating with the Palestinians. Not surprising that Israeli's system of apartheid, collective punishment, air strikes killing civilians including children and babies and Israel obstacles to negotiations contributed to Hamas's terrorist attacks on civilians including children and babies. Some people trapped by the Israelis in the open air prison that is Gaza with no prospect of release will of course lash out, as Hamas did, as they have nothing to lose and something to gain by doing so. Ben Gurion and other Zionists figured human life (Arab or Israeli, adult or child) is less important than taking over land. Hamas have a similar view to Ben Gurion and other Zionists - terrorism can be used if it works to achieve your political goals.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/israel-and-palestine Human Rights Watch has repeatedly reported that while applying Israeli civil law to settlers, Israeli authorities govern West Bank Palestinians, excluding Jerusalem residents, under harsh military law. In so doing, they deny them basic due process and try them in military courts with a near-100 percent conviction rate. Israel incarcerates many Palestinians from the OPT inside Israel, complicating family visits and violating international humanitarian law’s prohibition against their transfer outside occupied territory.

Ehud Barak blames Binyamin Netanyahu for “the greatest failure in Israel’s history”
A former prime minister says “destroying Hamas” is unrealistic

https://tinyurl.com/3sak2nxc

....
“The immediate operational problems are being fixed now,” he says. “But a much deeper assessment will have to take place later.” When that happens, he is convinced that the blame will fall on Mr Netanyahu. “It will be clear that, above all, Netanyahu had a flawed strategy of keeping Hamas alive and kicking… so he could use them [Hamas] to weaken the Palestinian Authority so that no-one in the world could demand that we hold negotiations [with the Palestinians].

....Mr Netanyahu is squarely to blame for the crisis, believes Mr Barak. Israel’s strategy towards the Palestinians has backfired. “Because the deaths were mainly of civilians and the state has forsaken its most basic commitment to its citizens—to keep them alive—this was the worst type of negligence.”

[Spud]

Israel-Gaza clash: Why Hamas chose restraint https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50458141

The last paragraph in the article predicts, "But if the situation doesn't improve, it's only a matter of time before the next escalation will happen."
Very interesting that Hamas was at that time maintaining their ceasefire in the interests of Gaza as a whole (if I've read that right). There seemed to be a lot of worry around the time of the recent elections in Israel about the nationalist leanings of those now in power (but I have paid very little attention to the middle East so I am ignorant of affairs there)

[jeremyp]

Israel's increased collective punishment of civilians since 2019 - killing civilians including children with air strikes, increased restrictions on travel by Palestinians from the open air prison of Gaza, restricting electricity and food and medicines plus demolishing Palestinian homes in the West Bank and stealing more land and expanding settlements was going to provoke an extreme reaction from one or more militant groups.

Israel-Gaza clash: Why Hamas chose restraint https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50458141

Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, expected Arab terrorism in response to Israel stealing Arab land. To paraphrase Ben Gurion's words - steal land, expect terrorism in response but dead Israelis is a price worth paying to secure Zionist goals.

Of course posters with a colonial mindset like NS, or political opportunists in the Tory and Labour parties will be outraged by the idea that colonists could be massacred by the natives for stealing their land and will absolve the colonists of responsibility for the massacre.

Given what has happened throughout history, non-racists are not that surprised by Hamas murdering civilians, and condemn the Israeli government and Hamas for the murder of the Israeli citizens.

I see many supporters of Israel are lying on TV and on LBC - they seem to have been given a script to follow to push their propaganda - some are still repeating the lies about babies being beheaded even though this claim has been discredited and then continuing with a rehearsed script of further lies to justify their actions.

When asked why Israel was breaking international law and cutting off water, food and electricity to an entire civilian population they seem to admit that breaking international law can be justified against an evil enemy. That's the same argument that Hamas uses - so Israel is just as bad as Hamas, except Israel kills more civilians than Hamas does.

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

[Nearly Sane]

Dipolomatic 'solutions' if they happen have a tendency to be last minute. Even if the border is opened in some way, I fear it is already too late for some.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67116403

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

Before I give my opinion on steps Israelis and Palestinians can take to end the cycle of violence, just checking - presumably we are both in agreement that there are alternatives to responding to terrorism with terrorism, since History shows across all countries that terrorism just leads to a continued cycle of violence?

Presumably therefore you are not suggesting that Hamas terrorism against Israeli citizens should even be entertained by the international community as a possible solution to Israeli government terrorism, and presumably you are also not suggesting that Israeli government terrorism against Palestinian civilians should be entertained by the international community as a possible solution to Hamas terrorism? 

IMO genocide rarely works as a solution, whether it is genocide by the Israeli government or Hamas. I can't believe I am actually having to type that out on here but given the statements various politicians have kept coming out with this past week in response to Israel's siege of Gaza and collective punishment of civilians (including children and babies) through airstrikes of civilian high rise buildings, hospitals, people escaping on trucks etc, I needed to check whether you actually thought that Israeli government terrorism could be a potential solution.

[jeremyp]

Before I give my opinion on steps Israelis and Palestinians can take to end the cycle of violence, just checking - presumably we are both in agreement that there are alternatives to responding to terrorism with terrorism, since History shows across all countries that terrorism just leads to a continued cycle of violence?

I'm very pessimistic about this situation. I believe Hamas will never relinquish its goal of erasing Israel from the map and I believe that Israel will always use violence to respond to the terrorism of Hamas. This only ends if Israel is destroyed or Hamas loses most of its support. I think the latter happens only if Israel finds a way to persuade Palestinians that they are better off living peacefully with Israel. I don't know how to achieve that.

Presumably therefore you are not suggesting that Hamas terrorism against Israeli citizens should even be entertained by the international community as a possible solution to Israeli government terrorism, and presumably you are also not suggesting that Israeli government terrorism against Palestinian civilians should be entertained by the international community as a possible solution to Hamas terrorism?

IMO genocide rarely works as a solution, whether it is genocide by the Israeli government or Hamas. I can't believe I am actually having to type that out on here but given the statements various politicians have kept coming out with this past week in response to Israel's siege of Gaza and collective punishment of civilians (including children and babies) through airstrikes of civilian high rise buildings, hospitals, people escaping on trucks etc, I needed to check whether you actually thought that Israeli government terrorism could be a potential solution.

I want the violence on both sides to stop. But I think some of your language is questionable. Hamas's actions are not a response to "Israeli government terrorism". They aren't doing what they are doing because Israel keeps trying to kill them. They are doing it because Israel exists and they don't want it to.

I asked you what your solution is. I think it's only fair to admit I do not have one, at least not one that avoids a lot more deaths. The cycle of violence has got to be broken but that means asking either Hamas to give up on its guiding principle that it holds with religious fervour or asking Israel not to retaliate when Hamas terrorists kill its citizens.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm very pessimistic about this situation. I believe Hamas will never relinquish its goal of erasing Israel from the map and I believe that Israel will always use violence to respond to the terrorism of Hamas. This only ends if Israel is destroyed or Hamas loses most of its support. I think the latter happens only if Israel finds a way to persuade Palestinians that they are better off living peacefully with Israel. I don't know how to achieve that.
I want the violence on both sides to stop. But I think some of your language is questionable. Hamas's actions are not a response to "Israeli government terrorism". They aren't doing what they are doing because Israel keeps trying to kill them. They are doing it because Israel exists and they don't want it to.

I asked you what your solution is. I think it's only fair to admit I do not have one, at least not one that avoids a lot more deaths. The cycle of violence has got to be broken but that means asking either Hamas to give up on its guiding principle that it holds with religious fervour or asking Israel not to retaliate when Hamas terrorists kill its citizens.

Surely here you are mirroring Gabriella's position by having Israel only reacting to Hamas terrorism?

[jeremyp]

Surely here you are mirroring Gabriella's position by having Israel only reacting to Hamas terrorism?

Israel is "only" reacting to Hamas' terrorism, in this instance. This is a separate issue to the one of the occupied lands on the West Bank.

[Nearly Sane]

Israel is "only" reacting to Hamas' terrorism, in this instance. This is a separate issue to the one of the occupied lands on the West Bank.

But surely Hamas then argues it's reacting to Israeli conduct in the West Bank? Also, is it just 'retaliation' or is it in itself a war crime?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm very pessimistic about this situation. I believe Hamas will never relinquish its goal of erasing Israel from the map and I believe that Israel will always use violence to respond to the terrorism of Hamas. This only ends if Israel is destroyed or Hamas loses most of its support. I think the latter happens only if Israel finds a way to persuade Palestinians that they are better off living peacefully with Israel. I don't know how to achieve that.
I want the violence on both sides to stop. But I think some of your language is questionable. Hamas's actions are not a response to "Israeli government terrorism". They aren't doing what they are doing because Israel keeps trying to kill them. They are doing it because Israel exists and they don't want it to.

I asked you what your solution is. I think it's only fair to admit I do not have one, at least not one that avoids a lot more deaths. The cycle of violence has got to be broken but that means asking either Hamas to give up on its guiding principle that it holds with religious fervour or asking Israel not to retaliate when Hamas terrorists kill its citizens.

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Surely here you are mirroring Gabriella's position by having Israel only reacting to Hamas terrorism?

Remind me again - what has your addled brain asserted as my position now? Just so I know. Last time apparently (according to you) my position was that murdering babies was justified. Umm.. let me guess - is my position now (according to you) that I want to give Hamas a Nobel Peace Price for not murdering more Jews than they already did?

[Nearly Sane]

Remind me again - what has your addled brain asserted as my position now? Just so I know. Last time apparently (according to you) my position was that murdering babies was justified. Umm.. let me guess - is my position now (according to you) that I want to give Hamas a Nobel Peace Price for not murdering more Jews than they already did?

I was referring to your position as portrayed in the jeremyp's post to which I was replying. Your bias is getting in the way of your comprehension.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I was referring to your position as portrayed in the jeremyp's post to which I was replying. Your bias is getting in the way of your comprehension.

That's hypocritical given your own bias and poor comprehension skills. Instead of being evasive or disingenuous, try just answering the question you were asked. What position is it that you think I hold?